You know, left his teachers. Administrators are doktor the next generation. That's why they can serve a student in your life needs Young America's foundations. Do ages. Thirteen order older can apply for yes, individual membership programme and connect with, like minded students, learn from leaders of the conservative movement skills materials to advance their ideas and much much more apply today at W W w dot, why a f dot, Org receiver, free membership pack again as W W W Dot, yeahs dot war. please check it out, Come to the Mccarthy Report, part gas for irish lowering discuss with Andy Mccarthy, the latest legal and national security issues this week. What else the controversy, but the January sixth community relating to national Park gas, implicit pocket, asked an attribute dot com,

we're delighted to have you but it'd be easier for you and better for us. You made as part of your feet at any of the streaming services out there on Spotify to Itunes, and please give this guess, Nanny Mccarthy, the glowing indeed gushing fotched our views they deserve on Itunes and now without Further Ado, I welcome to this very podcast through the miracle of zoom, none other than animal health Rachel area goods has gone. And finally, you still on your boycott. I am yeah, it's better illegal leakage by boycott referred to are not following any egg his horse or games during a game and not even reading about them afterwards, but I've taken at the height of my boy I just I didn't know four days,

where the Yankees had won or lost. Now I'm cheating little bit I'll, ask friends the dead the morning after or suffer yeah I saw near posts headline were recording Friday morning. They played their assets. Last night I saw the near post headline. This was a wild and brutal Yankee loss as a cook. I'm glad I'm glad my motion so your met, your mental health is better than nothing else. You accept unified, as if you go to sleep in your thinking about this key players could gone differently in and I'll come back, but it's been a good break so we got a lot to chew on beginning with the committee. The January sex committee, so how these packs from Mccarthy fight tax, including Jordan and banks, implicitly, now we're not doing Jordan and banks whose right you're wrong here, who's being smart, his

stupid, but I think they're all being stupid near all wrong. It was it's just. such a Washington story, I mean it was, I think, really dumb. The reasons that we ve talked about over some of them are more recent podcast for Mccarthy, too, Really I mean the way he's kowtowing to trumpets is really embarrassing. I mean it's one thing for him to have to like deal with the dynamic he has to deal with We always talk about a number of times, but you know in this instance. He dithered, but the Democrats were gonna. Have this committee And they're gonna do this, no matter what they have a right to do it it's the kind of thing that, though, that Congress, if you put it that way, to decide which you never can. This is the kind of thing that

was absolutely has a right to and should investigate. This is an attack on the capital on the congresses, turf itself. So worse. Congress should look into it, which is why this the committee's looked into, The security personnel had dropped. The ball on the day of the protests turned into right, so policy certainly has Get him a reason to do this, and you know the politics of it are obvious there. You know they want to play up this whole idea of white supremacist. As the country is leading national security threat, feeling domestic terrorism. They want to use the capital riot to work to cap that feed.

Which obviously young politically that something that the that they have every reason to exploit so she's got political reasons to do it and the main political reason she has is that this is a very odd. The bull issue for the Republicans? It shows all the fishers in the party it brings them to the fore and it puts the Republicans in a very tough spot when they ought to be uniting on opposing. Biden agenda and riveting everybody's attention to that end, We hear you have tromp who wants to continue litigating the twenty twenty election be January. Six committee, obviously, is a circumstance where Trump is very interested and he wants people on that.

Many who were going to defend him and the run up to January sex than what happened on January six, etc. So Mccarthy has a choice. Do you pick people who were going to. The way good faith, serious investigation of January six, which doesn't have to be something that is harmful to the Republicans. You can be pressing the question of Why why the security breakdowns? Why the Democrat so selectively interested in this particular? rioting, but they dont wanted even not discuss what look at the rioting that was done after the jury. Floyd killing. You knows a lot. That is a sensible position. You could say, but what Mccarthy ended up. Doing was for a while.

Dithering about whether he was going to participate at all, which seem to me to be silly. You you know if you're not in there, you can't really shape. what the committee does and if the public was gonna, be interested in it. You want to be involved in it and active in trying to shape it and then before he decided to participate, He ends up running up from Washington to Bed Minster here in New Jersey, due to a beat with tromp and then, after consulting with Trump announces that he's pudding. You know, too, with the biggest trump apologists in the house on the committee in in Jim, Jordan and Jim eggs, which was a clear signal that what they intended to do was used IE committee to defend trap, which is obviously would drop once, and I think it up here

Had Mccarthy has every right to do this there. His positions to fill you know he's got the right to be wrong, so he can put on their who, however, in his car is, he wants to put on that's what he chose. It's not what I would have done, I think was foolish, but it was his thing to do and then hello seed decides to necks his main pro trump choices of the other of banks and Jordan, which I guess text Lee, because the house is a majority rules body. She has the power to do, but it's a really stupid thing for her to do, and it sets a precedent. That's going on to blow up honour, so I think she's wrong. I think Mccarthy's wrong and I ultimately, what it probably does is it confirms for

whoever the country. It actually cares about this. It confers a half the country that this is a partisan, start. You know, no matter what loose Janey says about it about how the other, do a serious investigation and it's gonna be so over and well Don t. I just don't see how anybody not just in the trunk camp but a man Republic, something if I were republican, I would really angry. That policy did this, even if I wasn't crazy, which I'm not about the people that the that Mccarthy tried to put on the committee and I'd be asking how it, however outrage ass, you may think Jordan and banks have been in some of their public commentary. How is it that they are not fit to be on the committee but but Adam Shit an Jamie Rascal or I mean that's beginning.

policy loaded on our side of this aside from lives with some of the most partisan, Anti Trump Democrats, who have said some of the most outrageous things that you possibly say and ship say this to rest about rascal due to a lesser degree, but shift has a demonstrated history of being in charge of an important fact finding exercise when he was. The intelligence committee, and they were looking at Russia Gate and he suppressing all kinds of evidence is all kinds have been for the indication he was saying publicly, but there was one to residents of Trump being in a canoe. the relationship with Russia and then Two years later, when we finally get to read the transcripts of what was going on, it turns out, there was no evidence and he said,

on some of the most explosive stuff for a couple of years, so any it. What was wrong with german banks besides in proper, that there are areas where there is clearly gone too far than in a way. That would obviously wants Mccarthy pick them. Dumping policy should next them. But why do you think my cartesian epic? Those do well, I think, strategically, Mccarthy shouldn't pick them, because I dont think the Republicans, but don't they helps Republicans to look publicly like there in a position of being trumps defence lawyer, because this some things that happened on January. Sixth, that are simply indefensible, and I also don't think you know it's one thing to say it's very popular among Trump space to to keep talking about whether it was a good faith position to say that the

electoral vote. Shouldn't have been counted and these core challenges should have been followed through on, but for most of the rest of the country rich. The pulling on this is is bad and I don't think it's gonna help Republicans. I dont think that tree like what they saw on January six, even if their convinced as I am that the Democrats are blowing it way out of proportion into something that it wasn't. It was still a very bad thing and it still turns people off as it should so. I dont see how it helps them to be defending that now, on policies side of this, I have a kind of a young, a fourteenth amendment theory on what I thought she was doing and I haven't. I have misgivings about it, because this is a flaw which all which I'll get to, but when I first heard this announce, I said to myself. Ah now I understand what she's up to- and this has to do with the fact that when we talked about this

the time of the impeachment the Democrats put in the impeachment an allusion to the fourteenth amendments, specifically section three of the Fourteenth amendment, which basically said, If you ve, aided and abetted an insurrection, you're not eligible to hold certain offices under the United States. Now at the time that they put that in, I thought it was, it was telling, and it was. It was snaky, although there was a lotta reporting about the fact that that the Democrats were working with a progressive academics on US this illusion in me, in the impeachment article. One

we didn't have a lot to do with Trump. I dont think because if you look at the Fourteenth amendment, it excludes the president and the vice president for from the list of offices that the people are ineligible for if they ve participated, if they ve engaged in nor aided area an insurrection war rebellion, fourteen amendment says so and I think the the exclusion of the president and the vice president is is obviously intentional Only because there is a long list in it's odd that they are not listed, but also because among the offices that you can't hold, is to be an elector for the presidency or the vice presidency, so it can't be that they just overlooked mentioning the president and the vice President

so I never thought that passage was even always in the impeachment article I didn't think was about Trump. I thought it was about the hundred plus Republicans in Congress, who supported trumps stop the steel effort where they were gonna. U no vote against counting the electoral votes and they signed onto that. In that case, the dead the Texas brought the aging of Texas right in the Supreme Court. and I think I've always liked there were laying the groundwork to make available the progressive groups, an argument that people who participated in it that Republicans in Congress who support the trump on not counting the electoral votes. The Democrats theory is that that's the ignite or of the insurrection,

right, so what they want to say is anyone who participated in that effort is culpable for the insurrection, so I thought that, what she might be doing with them with with third with Jordan and banks,. by excluding them is basically saying you don't look, under our theory, of what happened here, They are not eligible to be members of Congress, and what this commission or this committee is about, is establishing that an insurrection occurred and that it was triggered by trumps. For two did not get. These two can allow these electoral votes to be candid, so that Jordan and banks would be in a position of using the committee to fight for their own political survival, and I thought that was probably healthier.

now here's the whole in my theory, Nels also voted against carrying the electoral votes. So it's not it's not just Jordan and banks, its nels. And she said that she was gonna, allow Nels to be seated on the committee, but not Jordan and banks, so I have to ask if I'm right about the fourteenth amendment, why not nels, and why? These other guys- and the only thing I can say about that- is obviously George, banks are higher profile people than Nels, and I think policies a little bit skittish about taking the position. opposing the counting of electoral votes is such a frivolous outrageous position that it should be disqualifying, because Jamie Ruskin did it in two thousand. Sixteen,

in connection with trump- and she also has other members of her caucus Policy- does who did this in connection with trumps twenty sixteen election and in connection with the two George W Bush elections was a effort not to count Florida by some members of Congress, and then I think in two thousand and four. If I'm remembering right, there was an effort not to count Ohio. So it's hard for policy. I think to take a hard position that if you support that frivolous application, that that makes you ineligible and I do think they have fourteenth amendment on the brain, and I do think the reason they put that in there is to lay the groundwork in the next in the mid term cycle for people to run into court, try to get these Republicans taken off the ballot, but I'm not. I wish I could be more. I just can't explain the Maoist thing

that's. What she's got on her mind, so anyone resting on this so across he stopped above Republicans forming their own committee. If they did, there was such a committee have Subpoena power no, you it rich which what I think it would be like and this is another reason why I think it's really dumb to do it. It behind alike, member, in the young, it with the litigation over the election Rudy Rudy Giuliani and some members, a trump steam, ran around at some of the states that they were contesting and they had. These kind of in One will in one of them. I think,

maybe in Arizona, was actually in the state capital, but most of them were like in hotels near the org. You don't big ballroom since the. I think. That's what this guy help. He doesn't do it. I hope he's just like blown off stating that he doesn't do it, but it would be far sickle. They wouldn't have subpoena power. It wouldn't be an official congressional hearing because they don't have a majority that would would come, Russian, whatever kind of a cockamamie committee, they think they're gonna run and the only reason to do it would be to appease. I think people in the truck. camp who care about this. I mean, if you take the long. If you take the long view of this. Let's talk about Republicans were not pro trump and not interested in seeing a defence of, but what you don't trump,

roll on January sixties. What interest would you have in having the Republican do their own committee. I mean what would I lie to see an examination of what you know that left wing rioting following George Floyd. I don't know if I need to see from Congress I ve only relevance of that is that the democratic being selectively outraged by this right, I mean I did what we like to see some fact finding about all that. I suppose but do you not? The only relevant point here? Is that the democratic being disingenuous hyping January, such verses. Everything else. I don't need a republican committee for that. You know. Maybe maybe people of a different mind about that, but I Just what is he going to accomplish by having the Republicans own committee? What's the point so

You wanna know anything more about shooting Ashley Babbitt serve come around here it seems like just filed shooting to me and it's been investigated, but it's just bizarre that we know so little publicly when the average average officerinvolvedshooting you know when it ended any metropolitan. Are you you learn more about it than we learned about this? yeah that's it. You know that's a hard core here. Here's what we're I'm out on that! We can watch heard the shooting. I mean it watch it on on video. So I dont really feel like. I need to know what happened. I think you can watch what happened and we understand the circumstances and under which had happened. What we don't know. which we would normally no in especially when its black lives matter somewhat

when group in to some officer involve shooting and now it's a black suspect, say we instantly find out where the police officer and here that hasn't happened- I think it's not right to treat them differently, but I also don't think we should know the police officers name unless there's a reason so My objection is that in most of these cases, where we find out the police officers name, we probably shouldn't- and I dont know whether this officer, who appears to have just done his duty, should he be in life, as we do the wrong thing ignore these other cases. I I don't think so, and the caddy out here is if the bad at family has any kind of a wrongful death civil suit and it's not frivolous. they'll bring it and will learn the office

identity and will learn anything else that we we don't already now, but if they don't have a case like that and I'm sort of content to know that there was a shooting. I understand the circumstances under which had happened. The officer had to make a quick decision and the decision, we can all see it on video tat There's not a lot of mystery about it. So, I understand why it's become such a big cause, but I think it's one of these The region is a number of these. We could talk about, but it's one of these things where yell it used to be that those that the republic and conservative position was when the Democrats. Brought the rules and broke the norms. We would say we're not them and we would be happy to not be them. So if we wouldn't be demanding the same things. That day the man since the year since the rise of trump, I think it's become.

We're trendy on the right to say that you have to fight fire with fire and if they break the rules and may break the norms, and we want the advantage of that too. I'm not in that camp by and I you know, I pull the reason I like being on the right is because I dont want to be that. So you know, I am less, does very good reason to identify this officer. I dont want em identified ok. So let's go to another topic.

related to some of the debate over January sex. We had a big export aid from Buzzfeed Honour will Wolverine Watchman. This is the militia group in Michigan, accused of applying to kidnap governor winner for lie about this. The story was amplified by folks on the right, because it raises the issue and we're talking about this. With regard to some of Us Tucker's allegations about January sex of of whether this whole plot was hatched by the government and was basically entrapment rather than rolling up people who would have for such a scheme on their own, with which we know about this. Well, I happen to have done probably the young, at least in modern history brought. Maybe in all history for all I know broke the most consequential sting operation, the FBI and the Justice Department is ever done

the terrorism area, the blind shake investigation- was an FBI, undercover, infiltration operation, which is why we were able to stop the called landmarks plot, where they wanted to do this site, the simultaneous bombings and the like in HOLLAND, tunnel in the EU when in the FBI's headquarters- and they had other targets, they were scouting. So I think the best way to look at this, is the question that I asked the jury toward the end of the case, which is what would it take to entice you into committing a mass murderer attack- and I am, I think, when you think about that question and it doesn't have to be a mass murderer attack you can you can fill in the blanks? begin to see the absurd De Oven, entrapment Defence

in a situation where you're talking about violent crime, normal people can't be enticed into kidnapping the gun and putting around trial and killing her right, most notorious entrapment case? Why? I should probably young start by saying: entrapment, obviously, is enticing somebody who would otherwise be disposed of committing a crime.

to commit a crime and the legal test of it in federal court, and I think this is the one most states as well. Is that, if, if the end of, if the suspect either instigates the crime or is predisposed to commit the crime, there's no entrapment defense, so in order to prove entrapment, you have to show that the law enforcement people proposed the crime and that the person was not otherwise is disposed to committed and was enticed into committing it by the law enforcement actively. Now but the case that I'm aware of which I had the Supreme Court, I think decided in the year in the mid nineteen nineties or so maybe early nineties, which is one way you can actually wrap your head around

a child pornography case where the pulse once factors spent years trying to get this guy to order child pornography and they went after under that you know they were probably is or of mailings over the years, and they, when, after him, again and again and again until he finally there's something in this catalogue that they were peddling and they rested and when he went to the post office to pick it up, but they would so they went after him again and again, and they were big issues in the case about whether he would whether he would been interested at all in child pornography. If the apostle inspectors had put him up to it and had been so aggressive and hadn't really kept at or for a couple of years before, we finally broke down in an ordered, Now I think it a case like that. You can absolutely understand.

why someone would say the government created that crime and that the person wouldn't have committed it without the government pressure I don't see how that works in a case of terrorism or cases involve you know. What's what what's alleged in But the case involving Governor Whittemore, you kid entice somebody into blown up a bridge, What would it take? What what do I have to do rich to get you to blow up the bridge? You know I ran up, so look you don't these cases are always they always seem ugly and the reason that you run with entrapment

because usually when the FBI does a sting operation, everything's on tape, you know all the conversations or on tape. All the United scouting of the targets is on video and they have you dead to rights. So the natural. You know that if you want to try to defend yourself in the end, they obviously want to try to defend themselves, goes the time that you're looking at in a case like this is like some of these guys. We will be looking at life sentences, probably or sudden close to it. The best weight, try to defend yourself is to say that the F b I created the crime and was too aggressive in pushing people into it, but interestingly, it ultimately becomes more of a occasion, defence than inaction. illegal, entrapment defence, because these guys, generally speaking cannot make out the elements of entrapment because usually-

has happened, is even if the aid answer me informants have been very aggressive. It was a criminal who proposed the ski, not one of the agents, and once that happens, the agents convey, is aggressive, they want to be in trying to push things along as long as they didn't proposed. In the first place, you know they're they're allowed thereon Lee, no sound ground pushing art. So what you have to convince the jury is not that you have a legal entrapment defence

But that what the FBI in the government agents did was so aggressive and so over the top that the case just stinks, and you hope that the jury will acquit and the problem with that approach again is that the jury might have quit. If it was something like you know, you can you go after a guy for three or five years until he finally orders the child pronography. But if you talking about like a mass murder attack or a violent crime, the jury's going to give the police a lot of leeway now. Why are the police so aggressive in these entrapment This is for two reasons. First, what happened? What the job of an informant or an undercover rings, and the reason that you infiltrate is because you can't you, you can't reach the insulated people in a plot.

usually by the normal techniques and get up subpoenas and and now even wiretaps, don't always work was the more insulator people. Don't you don't go on the fire they have very few meetings so having somebody inside is. This is the best way to identify the people who lurking in the background of conspiracies, but don't come to the fore so one of their jobs and then, when the big complaints I see in the pussy case is that they were very. aggressive about arranging meetings and paying for meetings and paying for raw meals and that sort of to see who would show up? Well, that's the way that you, you small people out and you get them to identify themselves. You still can't connect them unless you showed that there is evidence that they are actually conspiring to commit some kind of a crime, but a big part of having the informant there is to smoke at the people who you would know the wise be able to attend.

The other thing is in every entrapment case, what someone is going to argue is I wasn't predisposed to do this? I'm not a bad guy. I wouldn't have done this of the F B. I hadn't pushed so bored, so what the bureau it Foremans and agents are trained to do is make big provocative statements. to make it clear what everybody's intention, and so, like you know, there's there's this thing in the Buzzfeed story that says: look if you're Europe for kidnapping the governor, you dont to be here now and that's that's everybody's you to leave the room But if you don't leave the real, been Urim right at all to argue: during that, had you not so it wouldn't happening in a lot of these cases is the especially if you get a good informant. They seem like to be. They seem like the driving

person and their almost a narrator rub the crime, but they are taught to be that because you know what the defences are: gonna be a trial and you, you need to have these conversations. That'll battle refute that here's. The last thing I would it would say about this, and this is the most important in terrorism attacks the eight years of terrorism, attacks that went on from the time that World Trade Center was bombed in nineteen. Ninety three to the World Trade Center was destroyed in two thousand, and one right we had the trade zone a bombing we had our landmarks flawed cobra towers the coal, the embassies and nine eleven right. We stopped exactly one plot and that wisdom, that was the young MIKE my case to the landmarks case I'd like to think it was because we had such a brilliant prosecutor running the investigation, but we had the same.

quality of prosecutors and investigators and everything else in every one of these cases, the only difference was in my case. We had an informant who infiltrated the oh and was able to tell us in real time what they were planning to do, and that was the only one we stopped and the point is The only real way that you are ever gonna have real time, meets every now and then you hit a home run within with a Europe with a wire tap or a bug like the young in the big being a case in the against John Gaudy. I guess it was so was probably the ladys of the nineties, they hit a home run. They got that bug in the raven I'd Social club, which was the place where they had their big meetings.

and they had a lot of meetings there. They were probably able approve the case just out of that, but that's unusual, it's not you, don't usually if you get a very device in a very effective place where they have a lot of meetings, but it turns out that they don't have meetings there for very long we're something always goes wrong. It's fleeting, The way you get in and stop things is by having an informant even more than one infiltrate. What's going on, it's actually to have more than one, because, especially if you dont trust some of your informants to be able to compare information is always good. But if you have something inside? You can stop things from happening. If you We have somebody inside you, probably in the position of prosecuting after something bad happened. So, as

what I would just say about it is it's: it's not only a worthwhile but a necessary tool in an area like terrorism and its probably some we should use where the crimes are in that serious. So what was there anything in particular Buzzfeed story that struck you is unusual or worse, disturbed. You worry is bizarre, feel like yeah. This is disgusting. Operation works it. This is how I inform its work. I guess I was Lawton largely my reaction to this is this. Is this is how these things work, but what came rushing back to be also was

A problem that unique especially to domestic terrorism- I mean I had less of this problem because, even though all the activities, in my case with domestic, it was a foreign terrorist organisation and we would going with you know some people who were not Americans and some people who were overseas and know. What they were. Re of rights are, is different from what american citizens domestically under the constitution- and you know, This is not a situation where we don't have a lotta history with the FBI had very active cases on domestic terrorism in the nineteenth century, he's an eighties and ended up losing allow lost at the cases dismissing them ultimately without prosecuting them because of the Kohen tell pro scandal where they were

basically doing illegal searches and doing a lot of things that they weren't allowed to do that they they thought would be scandalous if it was those by a public trial and would have resulted in a lot of evidence being flushed, but the the lesson out of that and the reason that you have so many stepped up guidelines for things like Pfizer and while, but why the government is so hesitant to use can't or intelligence measures when you demanded, when you're investigating domestically as opposed to investigating far people overseas is, is always attention in the town, Where's, America, domestic terrorism area between protected constitutional activity and will you cross the line into incitement were plotting crime,

and what these guys are arguing and a tartar parse it all out defended by the funding, will have to see how it will place out, but what a lot of them are saying rich. Is that the evidence of me actually doing anything? That's illegal is Neil that I went to training camps which are totally legal. You don't have to be plodding in order to go to a training. Are your practice right and what they're saying is they're, taking my showing up at a training camp and coupling it with my facebook posts, where I have a lot of stuff about the second amending and I have a lot of stuff about how I can't stand Governor Whittemore, because it is suffocating restrictions in the in the culvert era etc, and they try to knit my constitutionally protected speech and my legal activity

and show either that I was involved in a crime. When I didn't know there was a crime or I was predisposed to commit a crime when all I was doing was, was acting lawfully and acting in a way that constitutionally protected. I get out. You see that kind of defence a lot here it looks like it might have some legs, because you have some people who who don't see who's, who connection to the main scheme, looks like it could be kind of faulty, but they have a lot of evidence of them training and they have a lot of their raw, their social media posts. On the principle law that matters here and we had a lot of this with the blind shake because they were, you know they were. They were making political statements and they were making a lot anti american stemmons, and they were a lot of things that were seemingly commands to violence were kind

buried in the middle of religious sermons, so you had a lot of first amendment type arguments if the rule of law, is that the first amendment at the first amendment protect you from the criminalization of your speech, so that, for example, I can't make a law that says you can't say I dont like Biden or you can't say I don't like the President, you not let that the uttering of those words is a crime. That's what the first man protect you from the first amendment does not protect you from the use of your speech to prove other crimes that are not the speech itself. So, if you're, if your indicted for plotting to kidnap the governor, you dont have first amendment protection

for utterances that you made statements that you made that are being used as evidence of that crime, but what's gonna, be the naughty issue for the judges, it's gotta be relevant evidence of the crime. So, if you're out there, you don't basically saying I love the second, a man Bent or you don't. I want to be part of a militia because that's what it says in the second amendment: that's what we're promoting in order for them to get that into evidence. Have to somehow show that that's relevant to the crime, that's George, which is kidnapping the governor I think the judge is gonna, be very. The judge should be very stingy about how much of that stuff you lead in and ally, let's get it depends on what the defences you know. What the reason a lot of speech conduct comes in his because sometimes the defensive

I didn't intentness or I had no idea about this, and then you ve open door for a lot of your speech. It might not otherwise be relevant to come into the try. So that said, another talk for Andy, obviously trumps, relationship bill bar, not in a great place. Trump went from loving the bar to having kind of a ten year This relationship with bill barred and now open warfare with job are, and there are one of the latest things here was when buying, was about to give a speech Philadelphia. His travesty averted right right speech, Trump release this letter from bar to the: U S, attorney trump, when: U S turn in Philadelphia Bill Mixed

Swain, trying to prove that bill bar was shutting down the vote fraud investigation. So you can't trust. I think, though, bar says on this. What we make this one yet well, it first light adjust the letters from mixed Swain to trunk. Nodded Bart bars, not a precedent in in the EU. In the letter, an interesting we. The letter, I think, is dated June the knife and Trump Remo the nine July thirteen. So he sat on it for a while before he sprang it on the thirteenth, and I think he did that because he wanted to talk about voting fraud in Philadelphia, and he knew that Biden was about to speak about election lie in Philadelphia, so that was the explanation the timing of it, but I think rich. This is, This is another. A of the of the trunk problem. four Republicans bars

very good guy illness. Swain is a very good guy bill. Mixed way was an excellent: U S attorney in Philadelphia, he's. The only reason that most people in the country who know of him know of him is because He was like white on rice. Every time presently the crazy progressive District attorney of Philadelphia did something Larry Prisoner, like Mix Wayne was all over it, trying to figure out if there was a way to take something the state should have been taken care of his law enforcement problem and figure out. You know federal jurisdiction to to at least give the people of that area. Some protection from launching itself he's a good guy.

And I hate to see them drawn into something like this, which there being drawn into on account of trump, but I think a lot of this goes to the fact that mixed Swain wants to run for governor and he obviously would like trumps bored, so Trump clearly wanted out of him a letter about what Went on in the in the fraud the voting fraud investigations in Pennsylvania, particularly in Philadelphia, which tromp was pushing very hard, and mixed waned. Couldn't truthfully say that bar told him not to investigate so

he tried to write a letter is, as bar later said, bar and talking to mix Wayne once this got two went once Trump went out and said that the letter said suddenly didn't say why are actually spoke to mix when and in what bar says is mixed Wayne told him he was drunk. to thread the needle? You didn't want to say anything that was not true, but he wanted to give trumpet you trumps, something that Trump produce, so What he ends up saying in the letter is that he was very concerned about all of the indications especially were tromp was talking about and in terms of volume of voting fraud and bar stopped him from making public statements about voting fraud, so Trump represented at what what the letter said was that bar had told next Wayne not to investigate and in fact bar called Mix Wayne.

Not to make any public statements about voting fraud investigations, which is a very different thing. Obviously, and then the other thing mixed, it says in the letter. Is that book that the Justice Department directed him to give evidence that he had that was developed in some of their investigations to the state and the state attorney general is this guy Shapiro, who publicly was kind of the face of the litigation against tromp you dont want when the pro trump people will bring litigation and in Pennsylvania, Shapiro with the guy, was fighting back and it turns out that Shapiro is probably going to be the democratic candidate for governor. So you know mcswain if he gets to run, may end up running against Shapiro, so that whole Dynamic, is going on. But what what mix Wayne says in the letter is, I was told by the Justice Department to give my evidence to ship

RO, even though Shapiro was in the tank for Biden and said publicly that you couldn't win the election. Well, yes, it's true that Shapiro is in the tank for Biden and that Shapiro said publicly that Trump couldn't win the election, but that doesn't mean that you don't get the evidence to the the state authorities what what people don't understand generally, and I look until I was in one foresman- I didn't notice either Because we have state elections, we don't have one big federal election. We have fifty state elections election irregularities or intend to be violations of state law. So, even if the federal agencies in the- U S, attorney's office, is in the FBI, even if they go out and investigate them, they often don't find federal crimes. They find what might be state crimes, and the only thing you can do is a federal prosecutor is, is give it to the state authorities

now, if there, if their politicized and they don't pursue the investigations than you have something to complain about, but you have to give him the evidence, I mean that's. What every federal prosecutor in the country knows that so mixed way and ends up writing this letter that Trump uses to say that bar told Philadelphia, told mix Wayne in these and district, the Pennsylvania, don't investigate, vote fraud and if you find evidence of crimes, give it to these people who are in the tank for Biden and in point of fact, what bar told mix weighing was you can't make public statements about investigations, which is just as important policy and bourses? I never even talk to mix Wayne about given evidence to Pennsylvania. The Justice Department told

and I'd be surprised. He needed to be told this, because every prosecute every federal prosecutor. American knows this. If you, if you get evidence and you don't have a federal crime, but you think it might be a violation of state law, you give it to the state prosecutor's. So again is a situation where you know Trump in a public statement, got up and basically said you know, bar double cross them and wouldn't let the state authorities investigate, election fraud and in the meantime, what everybody might remember is that bore, took a lot of heat from both Democrats and the media, by issuing a memo that instructed all? U S, attorneys, to investigate substantial allegations of voter fraud because the you, the usual Justice Department policy, is you have to go through the voting rights division

in the Justice Department and in this instance, would bar put this mammal out. I think it was on November eight or November ninth, because You have to do everything through the Justice Department, including you, don't get approval to interview witnesses and that kind of stuff the day For certifying the state elections I think was December. Fifth, maybe it was disembarrassed we at you, I just don't however, what it was, but I mean they had a month to figure out there was fraud or not. So if you were gonna, if you had taken everything through the Justice Department, they never would have been able to do it and, as for his pointed out, if he hadn't told the federal prosecutors to investigate, then he would not have had any credibility telling Trump that there was no election fraud and making that

making a statement to the to the country, so he's gets it on both ends, and I know I often sound like bores lawyer, but I think this is really on ferries in this instance when he told them to investigate. He gets all kinds of crap from the Democrats in the media for doing that, and then now he's got drop out there saying that he told them not to investigate which isn't true. I saw you, don't they get you come in and go on rats all the time we have. This part CAS has been produced by the incomparable surgery, thanks everyone for listening and thank you anymore. Thanks, rich.