Welcome to the Mccarthy report. Podcast we're Irish Larry discuss with the Anti Mccarthy the latest legal and national security issues this week. What else the Durham Indictment you are of course listening to an Ashford, you podcast, who listens podcast on natural view, dot com, we're glad to have you better easier for you and better for us. If you made as part of your feet at any of the streaming services out there for Spotify to itunes- and please give this podcast in an currently the glowing indeed gushing fight our views they deserve on Itunes and now without further Ado. I welcome to this very Pod cast through the miracle of zoom, none other than any Mccarthy

a rich. How are you happy constitution day? Thank you same two years. I don't think we ever talk to the friend about the Francisco Lindorm game. Did you or sell on Sunday I did not watch it. I read about it, though, the three that, with this was that the three home runs through our answer and then he is, but then that's all the night they got into the fight right. Yes, they're all back at the second home run. Windows was really have ended up around the bases and was was doing this mark whistling gesture, especially the Yankees it and whistling when they were stealing signs and the private. you gave this according to the Mets Andy and where an exception is and then stand and hit this bombed, the tie, the game and then, like literally almost stopped Browning debases the start to to chatter at lender and in the best is cleared, and when this happened is great about baseball drama like that. But this is not an end well, for the egg is

opens a shambles, allied up giving up a bomb on someone else how they wouldn't be lender. But it was at last be interesting thing about. It was on I kind of relented on Saturday on my baseball strike, because it was nine eleven and I enjoyed both the Ceremony, but I just thought it was interesting that they're on the third pace line on Saturday night, there were lobby daddy. and then on Sunday night. It look like they were about to wire to start fighting and one things that area and I were were rub talkative ways, but my son, the Yankees, are huge. I mean they're they're like big eyes when, when Nab Judge hit the home run, you run you watch him running the basis when he runs past Alonzo doesn't like a stone picture of it. Alonzo

guy judge it just towers over none. I was remembering I went to work. I went to law school at the same time. Marvin Power, who was a star offensive Lyman for the jet and I'm not a small arson but like when he would have to go into a room he would have to like turn, sideways. To get back to you. I really just had no idea method these guys, but I looked out at the Yankees in you know. You got void and judge and. Did the wrong maybe standing there are huge guys, so maybe they should pick another team fight with their loved ones in approving size? Does not matter in baseball? Bat weak attach offered better right, so we finally has terms,

We have this indictment on a false statement alleged by this democratic lawyer salesman. So give us guess the factual lay the land and then old diamond what it means. Well, the hit the charge riches probably less interesting, then be indicted In this sense, the charge comes on the last page. In its a bit, you could do a false statements, charge, which is what this is in one paragraph in many of the entire. Since I saw over the years, are exactly that. Their bare bones in a just saying that somebody either made a false. statement of immaterial omission. It's about it other line indictment. This, This is a twenty seven page charging document and

Obviously the interesting thing about it is that Dumb Durham has decided that he is going on now clue the world in on, what's going on in his investigation, so it's them the interesting thing in the number of years that he's been at this. It's the most interesting thing that we thought that we ve got to see at this point because it takes the opportunity. to lay out what he's looking at My senses, that probably what were ultimately looking at here is a real. court. I think, he's thinking more along the lines of a final mullah report, style submission rather than you know, a bit Why she indictment, I don't think he's necessarily done. Indicting people we can talk, at the some more, but I think the happenstance abyss indictment. What forced his hand is that it looks

from the indictment like they have very strong evidence of a false statement against the lawyer. They ve George Michael suspend, would get to him in a second, but I just want to stay with this point. and ordinarily prosecutors want new, but unless they have a reason to try to break a log jam in their investigation by trying to squeeze somebody who has information, they needed to be in a cooperative. What you wanna do who is wait till the end to file whatever charges you're going to file? That's it. That's the typical way to do it, because, if you have different cases going than in many of discovery on different track, you give people weapon charge had a chance to see what you ve got it'll cobble their stories together and that sort of stuff. So usually what happens? If you do the investigation and all that,

Charging is done at the yet that's the way you would like to do, but when you have a case that either or both very complicated and any investigation that involve classified information is going to be complicated, pusher forever fighting with the different agencies who have what they call equity in the classified information over what you can get in what you can't the other thing besides, that and how did it that exists here is covered, made it impossible for more than a year to efficiently schedule. Witness interviews. To have grand jury sessions and all the things that you have to do that would ordinarily accelerate investigation and move it down the track. So it's almost like he had a pause in the middle and in a very important part of his investigation and the upshot of the

laxity in the delay, is that he's now running into a statute of limitations, problem with respect to individual criminal transactions that he might want to charge so. The issue here is that the false statement- that's alleged in the indictment, was made on September nineteen, twenty six which means the statute of limitations runs on Sunday of this week, which would be five years since, since that happened. So he was in a box where, if he didn't filed charges now, he would lose, count it doesnt me the way the statue limitations work. This is valid in the weeds lawyer stuff, but stay limitations. Violation is a defence, it doesn't make me it doesn't make the charge go away and it's not the rule,

and people can wave. The statue limitations, which I occasionally do, is because it doesnt eviscerate the charge it gives the defended at the fence to raise that you haven't brought the charge in enough sufficient time and the reason people wavered from time to time is they now that, even if the prosecutor has a statue of limitations problem on one charge, there might be a bigger case and it might be worth your while to bargain, on the potentially time bar charge. in order to try to settle the whole big case. I get the says. The problem is not the case with certain personal data is an appear to have been at least publicly that we know of any good

creations about waving the statute limitation. So what that means is even though its clear that tourism is not done with his investigation, yet he was at a point of you: either got a charge, suspend now or you can lose the count, so he charged him, but I think in charging him what he decided to do was basically as long as I have to do this, I'm gonna put out what it is that were looking at and I think. what he ends up filing is a very detailed as well as the prosecutors college. Speaking indictment that lays out all the facts and circumstances the charge, so that description is much more interesting than you know that the narrow full statement charge. That said, let me ask about an air of first aid measures be sets. It seemed to be strong yeah, I'm not there. Some other defence is gonna, have some thing

to raise, but basically what what the case comes down to is such men, is a lawyer at Perkins, fully which notoriously is big democratic law. Firm represents the day and see represent a D. The Clinton campaign, Their lawyers are very active in democratic politics. Mark Ellie us is probably the most notable one or the best known one, and he I think he was the General Council for the Clinton campaign. In addition to Rep, setting them. As for the farm, the firm also represented the day and see such men is a partner in the farm And he is in their cyber law practice. His background is easy.

Jersey guy he went to. I think you went to workers in Brooklyn LAW School and then worked at the Justice Department for about a dozen years where he got himself kind of nature of cyber law at a time when that kind of stuff was taking off and he became somewhat prominent, not area in law enforcement and after twelve years, he ends up joining Perkins, Kui enemies of peace, a partner in their cyber war practice. So the issue that the the Ledge lie is about? Is he go in and has a meeting with the FBI's General Council was interesting that he wouldn't we'll get to this. But it's interesting that he picked the General Council of the F b I have this building was

but in the course of their discussion, where he's trying to convey basically dirt on Donald Trump. Ah, he probably represents that he's. They are basically. According to the indictment he's, there is a good citizen, a concern citizen and, I think, he's obviously trading on the fact that he's got this ground as a Justice department, official in cyber law and also he knows and has a fairly friendly relationship with Baker who James Baker is. The general council at the time of the FBI, so I guess between those things is. Background the relationship he thought he be able to carry it off that he was

just a concern citizen, and this is the reason he was bringing this information to. The FBI was not working on behalf of a client, and it turns out this immense evidence that he was working for the Clinton campaign and he was working for a person who hasn't been idle the five his client. These identified the indictment he hasn't been identified by name, I should say he's identified in the indictment as tech executive one. So the parlor game now, of course, is who is tat. Executive member wanted even just to make a long story short on that now, I think, eventually we'll find out so far. I looked at the reporting we're talking Friday morning so far I haven't seen anything as of about two hours ago or so that does that where anybody figure out who was most people who aren't identified. The indictment have already been out at everybody knows who they are, but the sky so far as we dont know who

who he is, we know it's a he because he's relate is described as a new diamond, but we don't know anything more so anyway, Such men was working on behalf of this guy who, in addition to being a big executives in internet companies that have a lucrative business that is involved in assigning domain names to up to two, but whether dresses and that, as a result of that positioning, have like contractual arrangements with the government that gives them access to a lot of non public web traffic information, the reason given that access is because this supposed to be helping the government police against cybercrime and provide national security on the cyber side. So they have access to all the information and

He, along with the farm, use this access to do opposition research on Donald Trump, so what they did was they took a bunch of internet account. Formation that they had about Trump and people who are around from people who are connected to the campaign and they ran that against these huge databases that they have access to because of this tech executive, position and sustenance. A lawyer for this check executive at ease, also a lawyer for the Clinton campaign, but he represents two baker when he goes to have this meeting that he's just there is as they concern citizen he's not on behalf of a client and that's the lie that they charge, him was so.

That lie doesn't seem like a big deal compared to everything else, but that's what they are trying to get him on the. How important was the alpha bank story to tell the whole false narrative about Russia? something that I was very vaguely aware of that time. It didn't didn't folks on much doesn't help at all, in Malta for error by the way. Why more than include stuff? That was exculpatory? Why wouldn't say what We will look into this and was false as somebody just as Megan to airport, but how to help was this funny how that works right there. So you don't rich. I think that, probably if you had asked somebody in the spring of twenty. Sixteen.

What are they gonna nail trump on with respect to the collusion narrative, the alpha bank thread would have been much more important, but I think what ended up happening, especially because we can now say that the alpha bank story is complete nonsense, like virtually everything else. we ve heard in connection with tramping and Russia. But I think what happened is temporarily there looking at the alpha bank stuff in the spring and then Fusion GPS retains Christopher Steel to start doing the the digging on his end, and he ends up doing the dossier reports that go from about the I think they go from, maybe April or may until after the elections, oh, but throughout the rest of the year,

and I think in importance would probably happened as though the dossiers superseded the alpha bank story, which was a complicated story. To begin with, I should probably try to tell whether what the story is so people understand, and I must say it's hard enough. I wrote about the I wrote about this in the book and it was one of the hardest part of it to write about because it's just public. And especially if you're, not technically familiar in this area, requires a a bit of work to understand, but the simplest way to put it is their servers at Alpha Bank, which is probably the most important bank in Russia. And, of course, you don't how? How connected the owners of Alpha Bank art to Putin is the subject of much curiosity. I always start from the premise that, if you're the most important bank

an authoritarian regime. You have connections with the regime, otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to be the most important act, but how? How tight they are with Putin and whether there is this sort of favor bank that, but the bank serves as a function between Putin and the owners that there's a lot of speculation. about all that I always assume its nefarious, but who knows so? The alpha bag is very important and There's two servers alphabet and there's one server at Trump Tower that is relevant and what these guys, who have access to all this non public information. Notice is there seem to be malware signals that are bowing from alpha back for the server trunk tower. Now, as they start to dig,

To this end, I think, for the reason the FBI ultimately dismiss. This whole thing is as not nefarious it doesn't seem like the the Trump Organization actually operates the server at Trump Tower. It's like a contractors, server and leap. The explanation for why there were thousands of things going back and forth between these servers is likely to be the people who were connected with Alpha Bank stayed at Trump properties, you know for business events and the like and, like any other business, stood the trump, but your modern business in modern times who who's in the yeah yeah the travel and the resort industry. They take The information from the people who stay there and then Try to sell them, stop, don't try to get them to her again

stay here in Europe, the usual launches famine and other nonsense that you get from people so would probably happen as you have people who are from work connected with Alpha bank who stayed a trump properties, and this contractor like automatically sent messages, and there was there was therefore traffic back and forth, but from the fact that there was traffic back and forth. People who are connected to the political campaign thought this would be a really need our way to suggest that there was a bad channel of communication between the Kremlin and try

even though there was never any strong evidence that, on the Trump end, that the server had anything to do with Trump himself with the campaign and on the alphabet again how much the alpha bank bub servers had anything to do with the with the Kremlin. Even if you accept that there is a partnership of some time between Trump between then the people who run alphabet. So what what the narrative, let me just kind of cut to the chase, and then we can come back up, because I think it then next story easier to understand. Here's where I think Durham is going. He wants to write a report at the end that basically said

The Trump Russia Collusion political narrative was a hoax through and through that was created by the Clinton campaign in every material way and that it was stopped on behalf of the Clinton campaign by agents of the Clinton campaign who included Harkin's, Coy Glenn Simpson Fusion, cheaper, yes, I'm people like this tech executive that I described earlier and one of the interesting things we learn about the Tec executive by the way is that, in addition to being you know, all in four Hilary, he was also hoping to get a big job and cyber security in the government. If Clinton won the election,

So what you have in the indictment is this long description of how these guys were working together to try to take this information and see if there was a way they could spin it to make. It look like there was a big Trump Putin Conspiracy, and this was the way that they had a back channel of communications. Such men say assessment and the farm by the way has been left the firm. I believe this morning, if it wasn't last night, but the Good NEWS we heard is that he's left Perkins doing since he was charge, but what the farm and suspend want people to believe is that he was not a partner. Even other farm represented the glutton campaign and the Aegean Sea. He was not the partner on that account. He's too soon

labour law guy. The problem with that version of the fence for him is that number one one that when the russian hacking happened or what they alleged to be the russian hacking happened. It was sustenance who was formerly a lawyer or for the lawyer parkins going for the day and say so. I have to say that, as you know, is that ball, but even on its face is ridiculous, but the other thing is all the important meeting. Is he has in this scenario that is outlined by Durham, and that goes on from much a twenty. Sixteen all of the important meetings he has he bills at the farm to the Hillary Clinton campaign Account Durham one. The things the dorm did to shore up his case was Subpoena Park in school for their client fee records. So he builds the Clinton campaign for everything and the

The thing is factually issue as its described me indictment, they're all meeting together, you know he's waiting with Ellie Ass. Their meeting about you know Clinton campaign, stuff he's in the loop he's talking to one plant Simpson at Fusion GPS, just to remind people fusion GPS is the political opposition, research, intelligence, firm that run by the spy Glass Simpson. Who is a former Wall Street Journal journalist and they were retained by Perkins chewing mainly by Mark Ellie US, but they were retained by Perkins Kui, as lawyer for the Clinton campaign specifically to dig up information on Trump and Russia? That was basically what they were were therefore so, and they are the ones who retain in Turn Christopher Steel who who, along with sense that I believe rights, see stilled ass, yet so

these guys are all meeting together. It's just not plausible for such men to come in and say I'm just the cyber guy. I don't have anything to do with the Clinton campaign, because its clear that they're all over the plain campaign- and even if that wasn't true specimen in separate testimony that let's leave aside his meeting with Baker on number twenty nine. Ultimately, he ends up testifying in a congressional proceeding, any's ass when he met with the FBI. Will you meeting on behalf of a client, and he says he was- which is the opposite of what he supposedly told Baker? What he says to the it to the congressional committee is that his client was this tech executive number. One who has been identified- and we know that the Tec executive number one was all in for the Clinton campaign- was hoping to get a job in the Clinton administration of Hilary was elected, so I

think, if sustenance gonna run with a defence that he wasn't actually working for the quantum campaign that there was a wall between. You know when ally- was doing and suspend was doin. He ought to rethink that the fastest that'll get laughed at other. and I say that rich- usually you know it's it's some its parallel to say that when you ve only read the indictment, you haven't seen how the proof comes out, but alone. The proof here is texts and things that are in writing. So it's hard to believe that dumb, if they be able to he's going. Gonna have some defences, but I don't think he's could be a blood run without one. So what were disturbed go with his next month?. I think, he's not finish charging people. I could wrong about that. But I think what really forced his hand here again was the statute of limitations and I still think they're taking a look in the sense that you get looking at this narrative

Is that their looking very hard? I think at the fusion GPS and the law firm and Perkins going and that the ultimate thing that there looking at the most is the Clinton campaign because the way this works is I mean this is too. If people have a cynical view of you know the Washington deep state, this narrative is going to confirm them in all of their worst suspicious, because what you have here is you got a bunch of guys who, because of their cosy relationship with the government they have?

Access to all these cyber records that are non public, which they only have access for not for political purposes. But in order to help the country to cyber security, they used a privilege access, very wilfully to do political opposition research against strong. They take the opposition research and they give it to the media and they give it to the FBI there, as well as their getting the information and giving it to the campaign. So they are creating this narrative, but there's a Trump Russia connection and its clear that they think it's complete nonsense when the talking by themselves, at one point the Tec executive.

look I know this is all a red herring and they actually end up having a very explicit conversation, which is that which is going to be very difficult for assessment. I think to explain where the Tec executive and the other people whose work, I would say you don't look. We can conclude that this is all a bunch of nine. but the question is: is there were enough smoke there that somebody could look at this big? It was plausible that trumpet Putin we're income. because we don't really need to prove a crime here and we don't really need to answer some great national security problem. What we're looking for is a political error. You know something that will help what the Tec executive caused. The Ip S wooden wherein he is obviously talking about people about glutton campaign- will be very happy if they can come up with anything that can hang there at all so they're using privileged access to government stuff there weaving

story that they know is nonsense. They press it on the FBI, they press it on the media and ends the current campaign is generating the smoke. Robbie book and Jake Sullivan are going out publicly say everybody shrieking, you don't look trump and put in their connected. Their trump is just a tool of the Kremlin, so this is like completely manufactured and I think You start to look at this whole thing rich between this, the steel dossier, this episode and then the other thing I would go back to is the head of the day and see itself, because what we find out with respect to that- and this is information that that the item chef elicited

his committee hearings but sat on and didn't publicize the two years when he was out runnin off his mouth to the media such when he represented the day and see in connection with the hat he's the guy who brow in crowds strike? Remember they won't allow their servers to be mixed. and by the FBI doesn't let the government do forensic examining and very conveniently for them, the Obama Justice Department does not subpoena

The servers, even though the FBI is saying this, is what we need to make the case, so they bring in this crop private contractors crowd strike, which is very closely connected to the Democratic Party they got. You know all the principles have have ties to the Democrats. Welcome the guy who runs crowd strike ends up testifying in ships committee, and he says you know when you get down to it. We have a theory that Russia did those, but we can't prove it. You know we don't have a shred of evidence. That's actually would be admissible in court. That says this is that Russia did this and get a look. Russia probably did do it in the sense that they probably have some influence over this a ball of hackers, many of whom are based in Russia. We think, but that's not evidence that Russia did it so

you know what the hell are. We know that Russia even have today and say I mean that intelligence community says they have a fair level or probable level of confidence in it, but the guy who runs grab striped admits in foreign testimony that he can't you don't have to doing a thorough forensic examination. He can't prove Russia did it and mauler as one indictment about Russia that actually gets challenged court and what happens two weeks before the supposed to go to trial. He pulls the plugin answers, never mind. We don't want to try to gaze because he knows he's gonna to have it in court. So you know, I think you start to look at this. This is really really disturbing. I I I was very hesitant to like jump on the bandwagon people who said this was a total hawks, because you know there's plenty of thumb, factual connections between Trump and russian people. So it wasn't like that

craziest thing on the planet, to think that there could be something nefarious going on, and especially when the people in the government know what the actual evidences and we outside or only China. We all we can do is analyze what we think is going on based on what they show us. I was always hesitant to say: there's nothing here. This is complete bs because I always figured they must have something otherwise wouldn't be rabies. You dont want to believe that their that they're doing this, just that a political spite right. But if you look at you, don't you start to look at the hat? You start to look at the alpha bank. You start to look at the still dossier. Where is it where's that, whereas the Trump Russia Challenge, so anyone who says you think there will be more indictments urine and fusion could be it guess what this would be more false statement, type indictments or is there some other possible criminal offences

The theory I've always thought of rich is to the extent that they knew that they were pouring this very dubious information into the FBI. And particularly on the steel dossier under, but where it had to be obvious to everyone that they were going to the devise a court, you don't just on the way that they were doing it views of steel and the like. I always thought that obstruction, what would be the most likely place, but this was growing in the sense that they know that their they know that they are using this information that that's being given to the bureau and their running the court with it to get formal court process personal, their opening investigations. What what happens in this case, as Durham explains in the indictment, is that, based on the way that such men represented himself, the bureau opened an invite.

negation and what they, what face assert in the indictment is had saucepan been more honest about who we was working for then they would have asked other questions. Other things would have been raised. Baby, they wouldn't have open an investigation. Maybe they would have taken the investigation that different direction. We should probably talk about that because I think one of the things that that's tough, four door. I'm here is he's, got a walk, a fine line. The indictment doesn't come out and say the f B. I was due to what diamond comes out and says that such men had an obligation to be honest, yeah yeah, yeah I do not speak Europe if, if Baker s them, whose reply in here

if your assessment you're allowed to say I'd, really rather not say what you're not allowed to say. As I don't have one. If you know you do so, you can't lie you're allowed to just dodged question if you want, but of course I guess he figured if he had done that in young. The baker would have been picked up by that, but I think the tough line that that Georgia has to work here is that, for example, Baker who is who could be something of a slippery character, is an essential witness in this case, I think I'm much better defence for such men, then this idea that he wasn't really working for the Clinton campaign is. Did the statement really happen because remember this is not about this? Is not a court room setting he's not under out does not as a stenographer taken this all down. This is, he goes in. It has a meeting with his power,

Jim Baker, and they know each other from the Justice Department Day. You know they were actually. I saw this morning that there was a panel on cyber security in the spring of twenty. Sixteen, where saucepan was the moderator and the event was billed as a conversation with Baker, the the yard, the FBI, General Council? So these guys who know each other and know each other well and their having what is Formally, the transmission,

of potentially criminal and certainly national security, type information to the FBI. But it's happening in setting where you have two guys were old friends we're having a kind of an informal conversation. Now the false statements charge a thousand and one in the in the criminal code. It doesn't require that there's an oath in it doesn't require that the statement be written. You just have to prove to the jury that decision Let me state, but it's gonna, be someone's word against beggars. Now I assume, because Baker is a clever guy and they also have to worry about. You know he clearly doesn't have it in for someone I'm sure what they must have done is put him in that grand jury to lock his version of events. It you don't sound heights. What you make the mistake you make, is you just interview people, and you think you know,

but they're gonna say, and then they get out on the stand and they realise that they have waited to the other side, and they say you know, I'm not sure sure, that's how it went now that I've had faded. But if you ve turned to find the grand jury under out than you change. Your version of adventure, subjective artery charges, so If you have a witness you worried about, you make sure you get him locked in under up and by the baker was was justified in congressional proceedings under out so yeah he's a his version of events. I don't think I can change, but they still have to prove to stay, it was made and assessments, as I don't remember, telling him that I think he must have gotten it wrong that the EP. It looks like the way that Durham is gonna proved a statement. Is you got testimony from Baker that this is what,

it has been said, and then right after the meeting that sustain a baker, had Baker briefed agents at the FBI and they rode contemporaneous notes in which its recorded that but the girl, when his went, his memory was the freshest right after the thing happened. Baker said that this is what saucepan represented to him. That's not like an air tight proof. That's an important matter, and you don't think somebody like who's, who is a sophisticated law

or for the FBI, like Baker would not get something like that wrong, something that simple but it. Nevertheless, it's not the same thing is young, a transcript it, so they could have proved statement got made so that the most important thing, but I think the other thing is to the extent that people are going to argue that the F b I got duped here because of the current campaign was doing. I think, on the basis of everything we ve seen ranch, it looks to me, like the Clinton campaign, was pushed

not an open door here from the beginning. I then it looked like the highest level of the FBI was anti Trump and pro elderly they just they just were so. I don't think it's gonna be credible to say that Baker was fooled by this and you'd have to be. You have to think that Baker like has an I q of ten, which is which is the opposite of which drew to believe that he didn't realize that his pals us man was pretty tightly connected to Democrats. So another defence I could see someone offering is that the statement wasn't material when he didn't. I done if I d client, because I think would help what he would say is what everybody knows that I am connected to.

The democratic party, so if the relevance of who I was working for, was that it would give me a political motivation in giving information to the FBI. They knew that they didn't need be to identify the client now that the standard for people materiality is not hard and I think that's a very uphill defence, but it might get it might convince adjure. You know this this case is going to be dried Washington DC. So it's not exactly a home game for the prosecutors, so I think they let bill have a bill. Have some cards to play with the defense with the proof looks very strong and I'm gone on too long. But to your to your main question is I think the fact that they're charging this guy with false statements? Does it mean that that Durham has abandoned

the idea of bringing other charges that could bring in more people like obstruction society actually to be continued. Andorra. Let's go the other big story. This week, General Milly, we have leaks from by words new trunk book that suggests that Molly was out on his own talking the Chinese to reassure them, based, I guess, on intelligence- could at the outside observers, would have thought that that Trump at the end was bent on unlocking China Seymour I use bent on on ending are wars or ending the war in Afghanistan is Susie could, but anyway, that the Miller, how these conversations without anyone knowing without any civilian overstayed, sir, without Trump, knowing and reassured his chinese colleagues and in the most explosive this supposedly in January, said: hey, look it, How do you know me? You were good bodies I'll give you a heads up that with our about attack, you said so, don't worry so others,

such good reporting, suggesting that the woodwork account is exaggerated, I'm pretty confident that in October these contacts were authorized by Secretary Defence Esper, who is, quickly out and in January there is trouble, is Chris Miller there's been some reporting suggesting that he also in some form or other authorized or new the January contacts that my that strikes me little more dubious cause. I I don't think million nor had much relationship but Lot live outrage about this. Obviously the woodwork account is true. It's completely outrageous eve had people even accusing Milly of treason. So, let's start their its youth draw down in this is not in your view, in any shape

form treasonous. It will, I think, the way you laid out riches- I mean you, you hit what's the most important thing, which is up it's a bedrock principle of our constitution system, and our governing tradition are our national tradition, but we have civilian control of the government include, the military. So the issue here, people were quick to say, treason and I think, in a colloquial sense, if you mean treason it like its traitorous for to be giving information to China, which is a hostile regime, even though it's not an enemy for for treason purposes or if what the, if what people are being by that when they met level, this accusation is Milly. Is there

by if, if the one, what story were true we are undermining the principle of civilian control of the government and the military. and it was a question. It was an issue of Milly and the military running their own foreign policy, that that would be a betrayal of our system. I think that a rhetorical- I understood, the point as far as well as a matter of law, it frivolous decided this was treason and we were not at war with China and it's not even if we have a very complicated relationship with China and its arrival and its guitar still at times. But it's not it's not an enemy, so I think The preliminary question that is most important to answer is the one that you raised by dividing this until what happened in October, in what happened

January, which is was merely operating with the, a string of his chain of command, whether or not he was operate with the blessing of Trump, because that is China Command is not direct. The trunk is genetic man. His book the civilian leadership of the defence Department and then struck. So I think if he Was operating with a green light from his chain of command, then this is more like a misdemeanor, then an epic problem, but it doesn't mean that it's not problematic because to go to the one of the points that you raised last, like this whole business of did. Milly did Billy's China Command no in January that it was at the bed. He was having these communications with his chinese counterpart. I think there's a big difference. Wretch

and Milly to me, it seems to me, and in the statements he made so far have skipped over. This is a big difference between knowing the fact of conversations are taking place and that military counterparts that are commanders talk to the commanders of other governments, including governments that are hostile to us, because they are the ones that you know. If a mistake, it's made, that's words can be most likely calamitous, though, of course are. They have peer to peer conversations at these. A big difference between saying the chain of command knew these conversations were taking place versus the chain of command, knew exactly what the conversations were like what was being said. so, I dont understand how it would ever be proper, ever be proper familiarly to say to China. Look

If somebody tries to order an attack I'll, let you know I'll give you a heads up now how damaging is it for him to say that I don't want to? I don't wanna again go arc about this, because it like the Chinese are idiots you don't. They know how our system works and they know the chain of command between the military and civilian leadership and I assume that General Lee on on the chinese side is a sophisticated enough guy to know that if Milly said to him, look I'll give you a heads up. If there's an attack, warden, he's gotta, know but milk, not in a position to make that commitment and that, if Milly telling him that psychologically, what he's trying to do is bring the temperature down in the situation. But in terms of, is that an actionable commitment? Of course it's not

so you it again. I understand why people are angry about this inclined to be angry about a two just because I think you know enough about the button. Milly socks, young, I kid he's been awful. and he's been awful on stuff. It's you know, tat to me is important in terms of the culture of the military and the screening that he's done, for the progressive to me he's just a politicizing, the military think its disastrous robe American held a joint chiefs of staff to engaging, but in terms of this particular incident, I think he's got an answer: just about what would the nature of his communications with the Chinese and if they were as bad as they ve been reported. He ought to be removed, but he's not gonna be

remove coming. We all know that too. I looked at the sun today because I think you and I may I talked about this earlier in the week- and I mentioned to you passing I dont even know. I thought if you can impeach a military officer. So I thought I should actually looked it up. You can impeach a military officer. The constitution actually specifically says that it that the president, the vice president and all civil officers of the United States subject to impeachment removal and the early commentators on the constitution in including story concluded that a civil officer is not a military officer, so the likelihood is that you could not Impeach a year, a military officer and the Irish.

I bring it up again is because if you can't impeachment, what can Congress really do about this? They can read and write and maybe they should, depending on what Millie testimony is going to be, and I think we should mention that I believe there's a a an armed services hearing at the end of the month. So within about a week a week and a half he's going to be grilled on this, they can. They can make a fuss about it and create even more political damage for fighting by Nellie to the help of its belly, doesn't do a good job in his testimony. But if Biden doesn't want to relieve em, I dont really see that this does anything. That's that's to be done about this yeah. Ok, that's all the time we have this part gases can produce body comparable. Sarah should he thinks I want for listening, and thank you any Mccarthy, thanks rich.