I'm Rich Lowry, editor of national view and host for podcast called funnily enough. The editors every week on the editors I discuss with my colleagues the latest news and national controversies. We cut through the cat get beyond the lies and spin and provide insight and fax you're, not gonna, get anywhere else while having it time doing it in this era of folly, myth and hysteria. You owe it yourself, too got the editors you can find, Google play stature tuna in Itunes, we hope to see you soon.

welcome to not only the first Mccarthy report off the air happy new year, but in fact the first Mccarthy report since before Christmas, as chief probably noticed from the accent, is not rich Larry. I am Chow cook filling in for rich Larry. Today, I'm here with Andy Mccarthy and the topic is of course, the Mulder report. The publication And of which seems to be moving ever closer today, we're gonna focus in on the two big questions, really, the two great philosophical questions there is and the ought. Where are we

That ought to be what is smaller doing. What should he be doing? Think we will start with? What is he doing and with the question is Mullah wrapping up and the Happy New Year happy New Year, Charlie thanks. So much for doing this today, of course, of course, is Mahler wrapping up what indications do we have that he is well. Charlie, we ve noted in the last series, apply cast at their We never. We always have to qualify that we don't know exactly What's going on in Malta situation. There are aspects of it because it to counter attack, agents investigation that we may never know exactly what he's been up to but we certainly won't have anything stumbling perfect inside, into it at all, not only

he ultimately releases his report, but there is a big to do with. back to what exactly should be in that report and the fact that it is a report that made the attorney general who will be the attorney general at that time? What decisions will be made about disclosure and the like so there's a lot of speculation, and surmise involved in appraising, what he's up too. But if we look at it in terms of what prosecutors typically do in investigations and what the usual course of an investigation. Is there a lot of reasons to think that mauler is closer to the end, then the beginning though I continued to qualify for four people that those who thing but the end is imminent, as in any day any moment now we're going to get,

report or low be at announcement that he follow report. I think that's optimistic. I actually think at least we're three months to go before. Completely wrapped up in maybe more than that The reason we can we can speculate along. Those lines is that there are, obvious potential. this is in this investigation. We called is witnesses. Testimony Smaller were planning a big proceeding, a big indictment, along the lines of the original rationale for the investigation is which was whether There was a high speed. conspiracy between the trunk campaign and the Kremlin. To sway the twenty six. steam election and what typically

prosecutors would do with cooperating witnesses is old, there are certain things in abeyance until after theyve provided there Full cooperation, which would include testimony in a big proceeding, I hear. Mahler is allowing the cooperating with the ostensibly sensibly cooperating witnesses like General Flynn problem Lee Paul man afford, although his status as a whole, operator is certainly in limbo at the moment. But if you if you look back to the other people improve pledge guilty the investigation vendors of on the the lawyer, George doubtless he's alive. them all to be sentenced. It would be be very unusual for a prosecutor to have the witnesses, be sentenced and then do a big proceeding so I too believe that he's look

at winding. This down without charges in terms of pedestrian conspiracy both be I'll be Witnesses have been. And still will be. Certain stir will all be sentenced fairly shortly Secondly, because if you look at it and the indictments that Malta has filed in particular The two cases that he's broad against Russia, in persons and entities they see. to preclude the possibility of an agreed? meant between the russian side and anyone on the american side too, either the social media, manipulation or the hacking. So It looks to me between the content of the the charges he smiled

what's going on with the witnesses and a few other things like the fact that Malta has transferred some of it recent studies, brought to other components of the Justice Department and That this been some marginal downsizing of staff that is all certainly consistent with the idea that he is brainless to a clubs but the pieces of evidence that would suggest the the opposite. yeah. Well, that's that's the reason. I think that we still some months ago. One thing I think that the people need to understand, Mahler has at least one grand jury. That's open and working and whenever you have a grand jury, that's open and working. There's, there's always possibility that more charges we brought and we for a fact that he is

contemplating more charges because there has been public reporting. about a case against Jerome Course, E b. One on how you wanted to see exactly, but the kind of walking in the world a sort of wannabe journalism in and the Trump camp. At the same time, of course, It is the source of some. reporting that he good, he has been offered a pie ideal by mothers office. That is that he would plead guilty least one count of everybody else. In this case it seems one count of lying to FBI, agents or misleading the two gaiters mad apparently, I think, Charlie, what the the they're trying to connect there. Is whether there were

people, who were at least around the orbit of the trunk campaign, who had direct connection I'm some kind to to were Whitey lakes and the idea would be did they have for knowledge of the fact that Whitey Lakes had these how's that have been hacked from democratic accounts and waste. He tramped campaign tipped off that. That was going to happen. I don't Think that that's a major thread the criminal investigation. It will be very interesting in terms of what its political impact is if they can established, because even if they were able to show that people around the Trump Camp head for knowledge of the fact that Whitey leaks was going to put that this information out that way,

not prove that the term campaign, an understanding with the Kremlin about the actual hacking. It would just mean that they had for knowledge that, whoever, though the Kremlin had a rain, to pass the information off to the trial campaign knew at some point the information was going to be broadcast. I saw it in the category of what I would call a key and yucky, but it b something up, criminal and the only reason we know again that that's going on is because of the reporting about courses, so There's that strand it looked a couple of weeks go at least like it might be more toward a conclusion, but now it seemed whatever negotiations course he had with the special Council broke down and leave course he has actually sued mauler in court,

that that obviously, is something this take some time to play out there is also a great grand jury litigation that has been going on in the district court. In the District of Columbia and also in the court of appeals, and we know about this from some very good reporting. That's been and by political include. Some interesting columns that work- by a guy named Nelson Cunningham, who is a former colleague of mine at the U attorney's office in New York. All those years ago, very sharp lawyer, but kind of went out on a whim beginning of his reporting, and suggested that all the secrecy around this litigation. We don't know who the target of this

Tina from all our ears and it's a subpoena from the grand jury subpoena from Malta. That's it the at the root of all of this now initially Surmised that Trump, that is President Trump was the target of the subpoena and that that that what is the reason for all the secrecy about it and the reason that it seem to be moving through the courts with unusual speed, that is why? Not only from, though the district court. Making its ruling, but at one pretty quickly up to the court, appeals and they seem to have decided it. In fact, for a smaller. The data bases We now know because of some information. That's that's troubled out President Trump is not the target of these subpoena subpoena cease to be directed at some corporation,

it is sufficiently entangled with a foreign government too. Deemed as a matter of law, almost an arm of that government and the The root of the dispute, so far as we understand it- is that the com money is claiming that clothes. What Mahler is asking to be disclosed would be, a violation of the laws of the country that the company is tied to an end. one of the things that that the is being asked to resolve four Mahler has one The rounds in the lower court, but d courting from political suggests this could be very very explosive, because not only is there all the secrecy around it, but also chief justice, Roberts the Supreme Court, is now involved in the case

and some of the reporting May. I also think that this is one since this is the headline on the report was a lot more provocative than the story was The headlines suggested that Robert TED entered acted himself into the case. In point of fact, I've been in a number of these litigation when I was a prosecutor, grand jury matters are secret as amount a federal law. So if you into a district, We say to argue that somebody who is claiming a fifth, and privileged, doesn't actually have a privilege. Or somebody who is trying to withhold information, doesn't have a legal privilege to withhold it. all those arguments take place before a judge either in it what room or in chambers, but with no with the public not away of them, and no one in the media aware of them.

And in the unusual cases, where those things get appealed to the court appeals, We actually have the argument in the court of appeals with nobody in the courtroom, except for the the lid against in the court that that is the public and the media are kept out. And the reason this case went to. Chief Justice Roberts. Is not a matter of Robert choosing to interact himself in an interesting case that that appears to involve bar The fact is, the chief Justice Roberts is be, isn't Justice who was assigned to the do you see circuit? So there are The country is divided into about ninety four judicial districts. there were twelve or thirteen circuits, in the country that all the districts are assigned to any

circuit, has a justice of the Supreme Court to whom emergency applications would be directed. and the only reason that Roberts happens to have caught this cases. He is the justice the DC circuit. So it's not a matter of him into acting himself, it's just because an appeal from the disease he is the guy who naturally caught the appeal and I think all he's done and again this is that we're all reading dealing because we haven't gotten to read any of the pleadings, but appears that all he's done is stayed the ultimate order of the day see circuit court. In order that it to consider whether the entire Supreme Court What away in on this or what? something that Roberts himself can dispose of, which would be

Basically, by not taking any action and leaving the ruling of the of the circuit court intact. So that we know that that litigation is going on as well. and then the final thing I guess I'd by throwing, is dead We have also heard that. mauler and the president's legal team, are not finished negotiating whether deal any further, the view of the president the special council People may remember that, probably about. six weeks ago or so I think was around Thanksgiving, actually be evidence through his legal team provided written answers to. Questions that the bar had paused

And we have reason to believe that those that the questions that were negotiating met. The president side agreed to answer were mainly related to the collusion part of Mars, that is any entanglement between the Kremlin and the trunk campaign. I believe the crust thence team at the time was taken. the position and continues to take the position that the destruction to is improper because Malta is not at least for, as we know, Mahler is not claiming that there has been witness or evidence tampering as there were inside the Clinton and Nixon situations with with witnesses the allegation, at least as we understand it is

mothers theory is that the president can investigated and perhaps cited for corruption on the base, of ostensible, sensible lawful exercise of his constitutional prerogatives like fire subordinate executive officials who fired call me weighing in on Heather Flynn be investigated, which would be a problem. tutorial discretion or exercising prosecutor discretion. Things like that. In power as we understand it, Mauler maybe theorizing that the president can cited for obstruction if those muscle exercises of his discretion affected. Starvation. The president has acted in what the prosecutor describes or, We're decides, are improper

It said that is an enormously controversial position. I married you always spit very controversial, and I think it would have not a lot of support, if, if it didn't seem like we were playing by a different set of rules that apply to Trump unique since early on that? What what what are their potential redress is for Trump Eve if that ferry was to obtain what wet where's Trump appeal, and an end and the values in which he is likely to appeal likely to entertain that theory have what? What what are the president's here, Well, here's the interesting thing with that. Surely this is is this is a This is a situation where you have this political overlay over each. legal steps, so if we were

We were just going to speak strictly legally about what is happening here, you actually have a subordinate executive officer who is conducting an investigation of the chief executive and now wants to pursue, if, if you in forty years to believe, wants to pursue a leak theory in which he, the subordinate executive official, Would second guess the chief executives intent for doing things? Tat are? than the legal point of view of the presidency as a whole. as a strict matter of law, the president good order him not to do that were order, the attorney general to order him not to do that. The present in fact, can

You can order. This investigation to be closed, so before you even get to the question whether there is court redress for all of this. like it's interesting you'd, I've heard Rudy, Giuliani and and some other people into dissidents. Team suggest if they are ready to go to court and lit again De Subpoena meaning that they would a position in court if the president were or were to issue a subpoena to the president. They would move to quash the subpoena in the district court and there they would take The legal position, but this is a crime and there when the president has executive privilege the absence of a serious crime and which the president is implicated and

a situation where the president is the only avenue forgetting some piece of information that the prosecutor needs to make a case exec privilege should be upheld by the court, they may be right about that Jack. I think they probably all right about that. But to me what is interesting is it's a pretty arbitrary place to say here: where we're going to assert our, legal rights when, in fact, We just talk about legal rights, Trump card, simply order mall or not to do this, as I have two questions. This ensures that the first one is: how do we square the reputation, mother, I say, careful straight shooter with this legal theory. How far out there is this legal theory is indeed come. trouble with the notion of a prosecutor who is known for staying in the bands and who is a sober and his judgment, and

the second relates to the timeline, which is where we started him? You and I did a pot cast a while back last year, and I asked you a centrally- is Mala fast is he driven in any way by politics- is his timing, driven by political considerations, to what and should it be, should federal agencies look at elections and cycles, and and- and around them and you said no, you thought he was fair in that regard, that he wasn't playing games. He wasn't waiting for the mid term. He wasn't not waiting for them attempts. He was just doing his job But we also know that the grand jury still convened and maybe the presidential interviews are not finished, and one of the criticisms that you

there in all federal proceedings, not just when they relate to the president, but when they relate to anyone say Martha. Stewart is that the government goes in looking for something in particular and over time it finds extraneous information which. Can be used at the root of a separate prosecution and people. Some people myself included thing that can be a little unfair. I entirely accept the point that mothers being fair, but there is, of course, going to be some value judgment to be made here by mullah if the the procedural part of the of the investigation is not over at some point, he's going to have to say we're done

I can't look at everything. I can't wait for all new information to come to light. I can't interviewed the president a hundred times on the off Chauncey says. Something then creates a new branch and so on and so forth. So the two questions I have is one: if, if he is a careful and fair man, how should we see this legal fairy, which some characterizes as a little louder and to what point would this be dragging and look like. Not not a witch hunt seized the president's phrase, but but look like a I sort of endless investigation. John dies. We John Dice sort of situation well, I think, Charlie the I would say that mauler

he is fair and and place it by but within the bounds of being very aggressive, familiar, point being that you can be aggressive, within the rules and What I mean by that is, if you look at the way that mauler, I think with, Are you often have to sort out a lot of the public pouring in things that have been said about mauler. including by me against what is actually done so far the talk about the witch Hunt The fact of the matter is, if you look carefully at all of the charges, that mauler as filed. he has never once hinted at any misconduct by President Trump and, as we discussed earlier,

is indictment against the Russian seem to cut against the the right She now for the investigation that the Trump campaign may have been in cahoots with the Russians so I think, if you just look at what Mahler has produced here the very fair to the president, and If you look at the media reporting that we have, I would say that most of what we know about Mars investigation, particularly Moors investigation about Trump, is because trumps. legal team speaks to the media. We and had any indication that I'm aware of of Mahler. Actually you know making any information. He did. dark during the mid term elections. We really didn't hear from him from Labour day until some time after that, deliberate. I think it was because he was born

I looked into it, I must say I think it was a kind of extravagant expansion of the Justice Department Guide. statute, that a prosecutor shouldn't take steps that would affect an election at least over steps that would fact an election. I mean here we're talking about we were not. We weren't talking about specific, can't dates. Usually that guy in supplies to you know, you're investigating somebody who's running for the Senate, and you have to a good decision about whether you don't you go too far, an indictment close to the election day and thereby affect the comedy election here. We didn't really have that situation. The question was was smaller going to do anything the president that would derivatively have some impact on the mid term elections. I actually didn't think it came under the justice. Depart, guidance at all- but I do know

in an abundance of caution. It appears that every Thing that Mahler did in that sector we period he did behind the scenes. There wasn't any public announcements of chargers or indictments and the like and to the We know that there were. Negotiations are ongoing about the president. speaking tomorrow give the sitting for an interview we learned about all that stuff from the presidency. voting to my knowledge. We didn't get any leaks from modesty, so it's all to the good on the other side the ledger, Charlie Molly, hiring decisions is staffing decisions here. I think we're appalling the fact that it gives it to me very ten years, in terms of if you go we do an investigation, that's that's unavoidably, fraught with politics. I dont think you want to read

to do the investigation activists democratic contributed to democratic causes in some of whom represented the collections, for example- the constant foundation- and MRS Clinton personally, I believe, and also recruit from the top level of the Obama, the Justice Department that was entity that was investigating Trump before the election. I think that you don't Mahler should have been much more careful in recruiting people who either no political connections or at least A smattering of people from from besides, instead his is staffing decisions of maybe investigation very vulnerable to the claim that it so that it politicized and to do more to the point that you specifically asked me about, while

Mahler himself does have this reputation for you now for rectitude and staying in the bounds he had recruited. A cup of more than a couple of lawyers, who have a reputation for pushing the envelope but in terms of both very aggressive charging very aggressive practices in terms of how much disclosure the government, it's too to give in terms of complying with due process rules, what we ve seen throughout this This delegation, I think very aggressive charges a lot of people. We have been we ve been charged with lying to the FBI under circumstances where there is no underlying crime, an exit. secrecy and

would be something that you would expect in an investigation that is being, one day to day I mean Mahler is the special council, but he basic be recruited Andrew Weissmann. who has this reputation for being very aggressive to be his chief deputy for people. Of the investigation, Unease recruited, Michael driven pool within the solicitor General Office very, very fine, constitutional and constitutional lawyer and very, very well versed in in substantive criminal law and criminal procedure, but ways aggressive then, who I think, would aggressively protect or war argue in favour of the things that dumb that Weissmann we do, which is which could be in a year in the nature of pretty shop practices. So

is smaller, fair, but you know, I think. You probably have to ask in terms of you: don't mowers, whole team, I dont know that by. I dont think I would call them particularly fair. and I think, a lot of what done here. I guess the simplest way to say this joy is said this has been my be from from day one. I don't think The objective person could look at them the Hillary Clinton invest. negation was handled and the way that Malta has handled the Trump Russia Investigation and say but the same quality of justice was afforded both situations- and I think What really rubbish people the wrong way is that it it's that we don't have one standards of justice- I think people could even accept them.

not not be happy about it, and I think you're you're quite right to be worried about the fact that he's investigation seem to start at point day and often, an years later, at something It's very remote from from where they started. Circumstances, where things get charged that aren't the table when you, when you were commenced, the investigation in the first That is something that is a reason why I think be spent. the council, as an institution, it's just a continuation in that regard as the independent council and a special prosecutor that we ve seen in the past, I think the perverse detention, because in a normal prosecutor's office, a case has to come. with every other case, for resources which are finite and as a result, you don't have time or resources to investigate

that might not be crimes year. You you investigate something until you figure out where you have a case or not, if you don't have a case, your clothes at you move on to the next case. Where with these special prosecutor arrangements, its assigning a profit you'd or to a single target and the Security is only job is to make a case on that target and very Often they will stay at it for a very long time to try to a case, and in this instance I think it's even worse than the normal instance, because, at least in other special council experiences that we had in modern history going back to Watergate, nobody has down exactly what crime was under investigation, whereas in this case they assigned to Mauler not a criminal, sport account or intelligence investigation which is not in the budget.

This department account or intelligence investigation doesn't even get a prosecutor cause. It's not prosecuted work. It's it's collecting infirmity in about a foreign power, so here, because didn't have the concrete or ITALY seemingly concrete parameters, criminal investigation as the justification for starting the investigation in the first place. Europe inviting a fishing expedition. And there's a lot, a reason to think that's exactly what we can took an amount about what Molly she should do next. What his report showed that, like that, just before we do that, let's talk briefly about the other side of the ledger, which is a Trump administration, the person being investigated, not least potentially, and specifically the trump administrations

The nation of William BAR for attorney general, which has raised some eyebrows, including Chuck Schumann's, because by has made it clear, arguably that he is not enamoured of the mother investigation and that the probe, in his words, is predicated upon a fatally misconceived theory that might do lasting damage to the presidency. Democrats have said: well, we can see what's happening here. The president is worried that Malta has something and so is putting in his guy his stooge, whose already given assurances to the executive that it will back it up and therefore the Senate should say no. No, no, no. No. You are not taking that role. What do you think of the memo itself and what you think of the structure of a theory that this is a set up?

yeah. I think that the Schuman theory is that is really a caricature of Bill BAR who a reputation, that's very much like like Mama, is actually up until the point that up and the Trump selected bar was the Tourney General in the first pillar, administration that George W Bush administration? from. One thousand nine hundred and ninety one and one thousand nine hundred and ninety two He is universally regarded or was up until about five minutes ago, a super lawyer who is on a perfect fit for the job of attorney general having been not my deputy, eternal attorney general before he was attorney general, but also having

run, the Justice Department Office of legal counsel, which is really there. The lawyers lawyers in the justice system when they make the policy that the Justice Department applies nationally and their there, it's generally about, it's good a subset law firm as you fine any place in the country? I mean that's how good the boys, are there and he ran that outfit and if you look at this Bam Oda, that he rode united, Those things to be said about it first, he did not right the memo publicly garnish moors investigation. He filed as a former attorney general submitting it to the acting attorney. General here rose and signed a deputy agee and he is not a an all out attack

on the more investigation. In fact, it has virtually nothing to say about collusion, at all. It is wretched at one publicly reported aspect. Mars obstruction, investigation and- even in that regard, He flatly comes out and says that there is no doubt that the president can be prosecuted for obstruction. He goes through the the Nixon, including precedents, and what he does is distinguish between corrupt adds. That can be the subject of a of an absurd Sean charge verses legitimate exercises of the president's authority. Bad his view. mauler in his theory, is trying to imbue with corruption by making an assessment of what the President's motive was in

sizing them that would be removing quality or or are getting involved in whether Flynn should be prosecuted or not And if you look at this nineteen page memo, It actually reads like an office of legal counsel opinion it goes through all of the the Justice Department guidance. about not only indicting president, but what statutes apply to a president. What circumstances they apply how the Office of legal counsel assesses the obstruction statute. What is actionable obstruction? What's not so it's actually a but pretty stuff, a peaceful legal craftsmanship, and I have pointed out I would point out again that at the beginning, the memo an add on portions of the memo more bar is careful to state but he doesn't know everything. Mahler knows

from Alors investigation and that if there are facts are known to Mahler that are not known to bar. That would obviously change or could obvious to change this assessment, but BAR is saying in the memo which again, those in any way attempt to deal with you to Mars investigation is that if this, publicly reported theory of obstruction war what is pursuing its something that the justice Department should look very carefully and very sceptical. Yet because if this thing hurry applies. It doesn't hamstring, the president, in turn, of being able to contact the activities that are of the presidency it would also affect every single just deportment official who has to either make a purse.

EL decision, you know you move somebody, often investigation and move somebody else on and then some sometimes secure looking at that decides that you were trying to negatively affect the investigation. You could be vulnerable to action charge. If you are secure conducting an investigation- and you make a tactical decision that some secure second guesses later on and decide that it might have been corruptly motivated to undermine the case, you could be subject to an structured investigation, bars point if you're going to go down this road, it's worth as for the presidency, and it would be ruinous for the Justice Department, and I think the point is well taken by do. That- brings us neatly to the art part of their. The conversation here, namely, what should mullet, do watching his

what looked like what should his report be to whom should it be delivered? I think there is a fantasy out there that Malta is going to go in the dead of Night Congress and sat each, but that is, of course not the role of the day. A day to day a j doesnt tend to speak publicly about his case is an ethical is announcing charge is how should he cried seed, who should see this and under what circumstances, yet what I think Charlie under the regulations, be dispelled council files his report with the attorney general right now, that would be one A who is the acting attorney general might who's that Senator Mcconnell is going to put the pedal to the metal and try to get bar confirmed in

or to MID January, if you can do that and at that, went bar would be the attorney general and he would be the one that the report went to, and I think it is we should we tell are listen Is there? Is there some depth? to the relationship between bar and Mahler. When when bar ways the attorney general under the first pillar the Bush Mahler ways to achieve for the criminal division, which is the third or fourth highest ranking position in the Justice Department. Somalia has reported to bar before They have a long standing relationship, I believe their friends they have Enormous respect for each other as I the standard I know, a bar better than I know Mahler, but I think they did We think highly of each other and

now for, for those who look at this mammal and a lot of problems. I can you like I can understand it. Circumstances where President Trump has Oh trash the investigation for two years, anybody who gets brought in at this point he's going to come under some suspicion, but actually think the working relationship between bar and Mahler would be quite good, and I would think that not only the White House, and the and the Senate at least. Public into the Senate, but I They Mauler would probably be pleased with having an orderly process, which I think the circumstances when there has been so much. Criticism and clear

of illegitimacy about workers appointment as an active gee. It would be in terms of finality in good order. It would be good to have mauler tab bar in there the time Mahler thousands port. I think that will happen, but there's a risk here, presumably that there is no closer. There is no finality, and you mentioned Hillary Clinton did at the end of the investigation into Hillary Clinton, James Comatose. What was an extraordinary step and essentially. said publicly she's exonerated. He didn't say that she had done nothing wrong at all. Had no reasonable prosecutor would would for it. And then yes, the dear J, technically had to make a decision, but it was. It was telegraphed that is not going to happen here. At least it should

happen like enjoy your conclusions as to whether it is fair that it happened in one case and in another, but you don't fix mistakes by by committing more mistakes. So what happens? I mean it Americans are not going to get that moment it with somebody descends from on high and says he's guilty. He needs to go not that call anyway or his innocent of all charges, presumably Especially if the report is for internal consumption, do the Democrats hope for a leak today, subpoena it does that depend what is in it tat? How how do things play out once it's been to live in the political around here? I think, Charlie, that a couple of things about that, certainly they do subpoena it I'll take, does any question that they will not only subpoena they'll subpoena bars report

now try to subpoena his investigative files as well. Interesting, I think they will try to. You be, can start said star, of course wrote this very expansive report on President Clinton, but the difference here is that star was operating under the independent council statute, which required a report, and we wired him. Consider potentially Peter Bull offences. So his mandate was much broader than that of a that of a simple prosecutor, whereas bar is not an independent counsel. He doesn't have any responsibility to the cord war to Congress, is simply in in the region. this department hierarchy he's a line prosecutor who reports to the attorney general so they don't have any

claim that is Congress on on Mars investigative file than they would any securities case in the Justice Department, so they will subpoena here and now Have means, to try to squeeze the exact a branch into complying the framers, always thought that the Congo the power of the person, would be the main way that you would exert pressure on the executive branch to produce things the way the insane way. We do budgeting now days are sort are made that go by the board, but they still of ways to bacon pressure. The just department and the administration to release information, and I do think if we compare this to be investigations that the Republican Control House has tried to do on the investigative tax. that were used in the Trump Russia

instigation and compared to the Hillary Clinton investigation, where the just Department, the FBI. Simply stone, walled and withheld lots and lots of information from Congress. I think what going to find, is while the media to cheer the justice parliament stonewalling when they returned Ok, we're running the Congress. I think you'll be a whole new respect. Now, four hundred all oversight, and the media will be. The wind at the Congress is bad as they as they make these demands. So much we'll file whose report with the judge this department, it will be up to the Justice Department, probably bar decide how much of it gets released and the The thing I would say joy is that importantly different from the Hilary situation in that. Hillary. Investigation at the time it took place, was a strong forward

criminal investigation and whether you would grey or disagree with call me resolved that I happened to disagree, but that neither here nor, therefore for present purposes, the thing was: either you either you charger or you don't She was not president at that point. She was not going to be impeached if had become president. That might have opened a whole bunch of other issues, but for for the time and place to battle all to place she was either going to be charged for she wasn't network pretty much be the end of it here. You have a situation where it's the president who is being investigated, and even if The evidence is not sufficient to make out. criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt that It necessarily mean that it couldn't make out hi crimes and misdemeanours, because it's a different

inquiry and cries and misdemeanours dont need to settle by the hour its of any penal offence. Bacon Congress can vote them because they are. Leave the term presidential powers been abused. Congress will have a rationale: who pursue Mars report. Even if or does not file charges which raises the question. Do you think that the contents of the report, unless, of course they find some phone call it was ordered where Donald Trump Set of Latin imputing you thank you so much for making me president, but absent some bombshell teasing. The contents of the report will actually matter, given that this is ultimately a political question, or do you think that the sides already determined that the trial in the Senate of Bill Clinton

I think change one vote was it all inspectors? Everybody knew the outright forehand. That's of course not to say where we're going to see and impeachment that gets that far. But if you look at how people are talking about this question already both on the republican and democratic. You could be forgiven cynically for thinking that the report doesn't really have great deal to do with politics, well, you know, I think that's hard to answer because, situation, is so fluid and there's so much that we don't know I made my own view of it. I just wrote an essay safer for the magazine on the Clinton impeachment. my own view of it. In terms of the lessons that we we can learn from. That are that

the further removed. Misconduct or alleged misconduct is from either core response. Civilities of the presidency, for the acquisition of the office so The framers worry were concerned, not on about profound misconduct by the President maladministration in office. They were all concerned about corruption in order to acquire the presidency, so that would certainly go under the heading of high costs in yeah. I think so if we don't learn anything more than what we already know which that there seems not to have been a Spirit, Oriole criminal, Moratorium relationship between the trunk campaign the Kremlin, but they're alive a very disturbing contacts and

the president has committed actionable obstruction bodies made you dont some some I'm questionable he's taken some questionable actions in terms of his judgment, whether it was a wise to weigh on I don't. Then people gonna have a big problem with firing. Call me because they were When push comes to shove there, a lot of people on both sides who thought should be removed. no weighing on floods. Prosecution, whether he ultimately enter pardoning some of these people. Those to me don't rise in the level of in Peter, offences and they reflect aspects of trumps character that are not admirable, but that people kind of baked in the cake at the time that, but the she took place. So I think if we don't Don't learn anything more than. We already know that I

You are quite right that there would be it would be. Foolish for the house? Probably politically foolish for the house? to proceed with The impeachment, because There is no way that there's the president would ever be removed by the Senate. on the other hand, there are always being another hand, I think the Democrats It's not so much to the object would not be to impeach Trump, so I to warn him right and carry this process out for a year a year plus, and can essentially on unelectable by the time we get to the twenty Twond Japan and it seems to me that's where they want to go find. It is probably a good place to leave it. Thank you so much for this. We will of course, watch and see what happens.

next it, sir, an ongoing saga with perhaps a saga that is winding down slowly, thanks so much jolly