I'm Rich Lowry, editor of national view and host for podcast called funnily enough, the editors really gone. 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. In fact, you're, not gonna, get anywhere else, while having a good time doing it. In this era of folly, myth and hysteria, you owe it yourself to check out the editors you can find it on Google play stature tuna in Itunes. We hope to see you soon. welcome to the Mccarthy report.

I swear I Rich Lowry discuss with Andy Mccarthy the latest on the mullah probe and other pressing legal and national security issues. This week the Buzzfeed story implosion the Kohen testimony closure in and any other relevant implosion. Your listening to and Asher View podcast fuels into pot gas on national. You d come. We are delighted to have you, but it will be easier for you and better for us if he made as part of your PETE feed at Google play sticker tune in or I tunes, and please give this podcast and Annie Mccarthy. Ah, the vaulting praise it deserves In an I tunes review and now without further Ado through the miracle of Skype, I welcome to this podcast, none other than any Mccarthy Rachel Aria, I'm good. I'm good am eager to dig in, but I have to say when

censure notes as like the Buzzfeed story, wended that, like a geologic age, you go, we have to dredge up ancient history. Now, there's nothing relevant to talk about you. You are quite right to say implosion all around us. It does make it feel like all these. raised that only happened five minutes ago or more like five years ago. I did. Now what are you gonna tell me that, because of the government shut down, we couldn't go forward with this pod exactly is not this venue yeah, I thought used venue. I thought you might dis, invite me ok, so the Buzzfeed story. So obviously big story: travel around the world eighty times, you know highly consequential if, if true lead pipes sense for trumps impeachment, which I think is happening anyway,

If it were true and then you have the more statement, I guess what was it on a Friday afternoon Friday night I was about to go it's. I was about to go on television with Tucker Karlsson, at eight o clock and about three minutes before it broke. Now, so I go on tv and another network, and I was like a great had been on for, while a great, I have to go on the super suborning perjury night in a hotel, back on and an actually got cancelled anyway. That's actually were but a good night to be here. I am the level media, so that this statement from these special councils offers obviously highly unusual, but some people who are motivated to try to save the Buzzfeed story. we're making a case. You know it doesn't say exactly what's wrong, doesn't say that holding is wrong in its totality explicitly so

maybe there are important parts of this or that are still write and notably then Smith and Buzzfeed are still standing by the story. Despite the rebuke especial counters office, when you make of it, I think this is one of the most peculiar things that has happened. this long strange trip- and that is really saying something you know rich. I I think the most astounding thing that I heard the whole weekend before we just roll back to what this was all about in the first place. Is that the reporting- and I think I saw this in political asylum Maybe maybe it was Byron York and maybe he was citing something else, but the report, I heard on Saturday was that the special councils office was still

sickly, scrubbing or or checking it miles to see If these underlying documents that the boys feed report talked about existed, and I'm thinking, you know, you're doing a obstruction. Investigation against the President of the United States, and allegation you're the prosecutor on the case and the yellow. Nation is that the President directed Cohen, to lie to Congress and the story is that This is why it is so important that this is not something that Cohen

who is a notorious liar pedal to the special council. Rather, the story is that they developed this line of proof. By talking, two witnesses on the in the Trump Organization and apparently in the White House staff and between. Those witness interviews and documentary evidence like texts and emails and the like they put this gather realise that Cohen had been directed by Trump and then can confronted Cohen, and that was one Cohen fest up that? Yes, indeed, this had happened and the story that that Byron, I did over the weekend suggested that the prosecutor's office had spent

day and were still checking through their files to try to get a fine, reliable, read on all of us, and I'm thinking is the prosecutor. How could you not know that at the top be at the top of your fingertips? I mean this would be central to any kind of an ups. Action case, and this is not a run of the mill defended. I think, even if you had a run of the mill defended. This is the kind of thing you ought to know, but the idea that you know they may not have had at the top of their fingertips whether this actually happened or not or actually happen. The way it was described not with baffling to me, since it would go to the to the core of the case against what would be the most important defendant in the country and maybe in the history of the country. So I just think that

is peculiar from start to finish, it was a suspicious story from the start, because, if you remember in the southern district of New York case, which involve the hush money payments regarding Stormy Daniels, in particular the prosecutors in a way that we discuss before and that I think, was inappropriate under the circumstances went out your way at the plea proceeding to elicit from Cohen that tromp had directed him to make the payments, and now it is easy, an analogous admission like that did not happen connection with the special councils guilty play with Cohen On this lying to come, In other words, when calling plug guilty,

to misleading Congress about how long the negotiations over this Trump Tower Moscow went on recall that he told Congress that it basically it stopped in January the evidence now is a little bit all over the map thanks to Rudy. I guess we will talk about this, but the nickel creations went on apparently, at least

June and maybe even through all of twenty sixteen meaning through the election, but when Cohen, pledge guilty in federal court to lying to Congress about that, the special Councils office did not elicit from him that he had been directed by President Trump to make that statement, and I thought I still think that if they had evidence in a strong evidence that Trump had put Cohen up to him up to this kind of false testimony in such a direct way, they would never have played him guilty to false statements are well. They may have included a false statements count, but the main count would have been a conspiracy to obstruct justice and they would have current plead guilty to the conspiracy and experts-

within the context of that crime that President tromp his co conspirator had directed him to give this testimony. So the fact that they didn't have a the fact that they didn't have him plead to something that would so clearly have targeted. President Trump indicated to me that they mustn't Have very strong evidence in this regard, so the story was always suspect, but I I also think the with Especial Council's response to. It is very strange. So one thing and another thing that made the story seem a little shaky I was knocked down, and we talked about this too seemed wasting very odd, that there would be documentation and all sorts of people with with knowledge of Trump telling Cohen, to lighted Congress, where you'd think, if you're instructing someone to do such a move.

This thing you you're at least a little vague and careful about it right, I'm you say my called him to do the right thing. You know you ve always been there for me. You know, so it always seems odd that that somehow that this We made a sound like the memos went out. The Trump organization you know, Mister Tromp has ordered Mister Collins to lie under oath in there. You know in front of congress- and you know Alan Wise Albert was made aware of it, and that is never seem to to make much sense yeah it never made any sense rich that this was such a direct order, and I thought that was potentially parted. The flimsiest of. the reporting about the story? The flimsiest of the facts of the underlying. Story itself, does the fact that what they claim that Trump Made this gave this direction to coin. Is that based on such a direct, come

and or is it something that you would deduce under the circumstances of the conversation you know the veiled way the things were said. Did that give people reason to infer that without saying so in so many words that this was a command or or direction to mislead Congress? The fact that. In in making the highly unusual public statement that this was an accurate. The special council uses the word inaccurate. As opposed to saying this did not happen norm. You know we don't have any. Proof along those lines. Inaccurate can mean accurate and be

a very pleasant word in itself. I mean I remember back you'll. Remember this better. Tell me Andy magazine at her familiar with inaccuracy his eye resemble the incineration me I am, but I you'll, remember Richmond and I will in the in the Clinton days I mean the Clinton pay would look you in the eye with great indignation, you know if you would use them of doing of misconduct on a hot day when it was eighty five degrees and it turns out, they had committed the eighty eight the misconduct, but it was only eighty four degrees and they say, but it was an accurate inaccurate is is kind of a fuzzy words, though I you know when, when I heard that and when we all heard that that Mahler had come out and said that it was an accurate. I thought it was more important in the in the sky.

The things that he was making such a statement on the circumstances where there's been an awful lot of inaccurate information, over the last two years- and this is really the first time that he came out to correct anything that seem to me to be more momentous then the way that he knocked down. Because inaccurate is you know we don't know exactly what that means Last question on this, and then maybe we can numb I'll do my and our plus plug whichever ones waiting for an may weaken Bracken talk talk about Rudy. Can it a little bit separately as a separate topic yeah sure, but the thing that kind of lean the other way. On the other hand, when initially evaluating the story is, it is a fact correct that law years at the White House did work with Cohen Honours answers which kind of eight made what seemed a little worrisome. Yet this is

That is something this very important, rich. The case that the case that there could be improper witness, tampering or ill or influencing someone's testimony does not as their rise or fall on whether Trump gave a direct order to Cohen, to mislead Congress you know there and there are other things that are involved here for the president that our troubling, even if didn't have any contact at all with Cohen. About this testimony, not least which is common, did give this testimony and. The White House appears to have been very content to let it lay that way and not

Nobody stepped up to the plate and tried to correct, even though we I see that there is evidence that the even from what we hear from Rudy, that the president's certainly was aware that these negotiations continued beyond January. So no matter. What happened here, it's troubling that some who was in the Trump orbit at the time, came in and gave testimony to Congress. That was inaccurate about something that was important and nobody. corrected the record. After that. You know we ve talked a million times about one of the big problems with the fires of warrant applications. Is that over time, as it became more clear that the number one that that the information in the dossier had not been verified and number two

There were great reasons to doubt Christopher Steel, his veracity and some of the things they were representing about him that incumbent on the FBI and the Justice Department at that point to to get to the fire court and correct the record, they never did well. This is a similar problem. I mean they let that testimony which where people obviously including the president, evidently knew to be inaccurate stand now. I guess the president would say he had no idea what cone had said to the committees, and he wasn't that interested in it. But now we get to the problem that you raise, which is the Cowan at the time Cohen and President Trump and people who are involved as potential subjects of this criminal investigation or in what's probably What what's known commonly

as a joint defence agreement, but is probably better described as a common interest agreement, because, let's remember we're not talking about people who are defendants, at the time that this all arises, the the they are potentially the subjects of the criminal investigation, but we don't even know that at that point, so a com interest agreement involves a number of people you are potentially subjects of an investigation. have similar interest in essentially defeat doing or combating the government's investigate one of them in what it allows them to do is within the confines of their joint arrangement with. themselves and their council can share information and the

information sharing is covered by the attorney client privilege. So in other words, if it if you read were involved in some, that you had to have this kind of an agreement with with body else, and I was your lawyer. The other person, who is involved could share formation in joint meeting with me, and I would have in it many client com and reality arrangement with him regarding those community nations, even though I dont represent that person. I represent you and the idea is that it allows people to to essentially sharing. For me, Can't figure out where the governments going for a prosecutor standpoint I can. I can speak to this, because I was in a lot of cases where these arrangements more in

eyes, you always worry that it's a golden opportunity for people to sort of Kabul their stories together, and it is an invitation to two choreographed per three but defence lawyers on the other side of it would say that you want, to the extent that the prosecutors use very aggressive tactics to try to divide and conquer. This is a way to push against that, whether you like it or not. These arrangements do exist, but the problem for the poor and here is that the lawyers for the president or the president's agents and They are communicating with Cohen before he testifies in order to discuss. What is testimony is going to be amended those in there and lies to Congress, the lawyers can back and say,

while we assumed his testimony was going to be accurate, but it seems that. By any measure. If cone went in and told Congress the conversations Tromp Tower Moscow ended in January. Obviously, the President knew. That was not true, and if the President lawyers were competently interviewing the president and having these conversations with Cohen, one would think that it would have gotten to the president's attention that coin had given Congress information. That would simply was not true and you know the other troublesome overlay for this- is that Trump, of course, at that period of time, as a motive to want people to think that the negotiations of this over this tromp tower, SK a thing ended in January, Justice Cohen testified

because he's trying to minimize contacts or the impression people have of his connections in contacts with Russia. So even if the president didn't give Cohen this direction, you know, I don't think. That's the end of the problem forum and the fact that that Mahler comes out and says that this theme, the story that both feed reported, is inaccurate. You know number one, I think, unfortunately that, we something that that Mahler did not be cause. The story was wrong and it creating a real problem for the president in terms of the governance of the country, because once this was reported trumps opposition in

the Democratic Party in the media. Had him one step from impeachment and removal, it I'd like to think that the special council is taking enough notice of how much is investigation is hurting the president's ability. govern that he took it at two years down the line now that he took it is part of his responsibility to knock down inaccurate information about his investigation but I think the only reason Mahler did this is because the way the Buzzfeed story was reported, it looked like the to law enforcement sources that boys feed. Two could very well have come from mowers. Staff that that this leak could have come at a smaller shop

So I really think that mauler knocked him down, not because it was an inaccurate story, but because the reputation of his own investigation was at stake. All that said whether the president gave this directive or not is obviously of great importance. But, however, that question is resolved and I think I am pretty confident that that it didn't happen, at least as reported. It's hardly the ended. The problem for the president. Ok, let's pause and go to the aforementioned and our plus plug we are now above fifteen thousand signed up subscribers to end our plus, which are absolutely delighted by if you are one of those people. Thank you very much. We appearing enjoying it and finding it valuable if you're not or those people, we hope you.

said, are getting on the bandwagon least checking out, then our plus also to benefits most important. You get access to all were content, all the print magazine, content and all the web exclusive content that might be behind our metered pay wall in the metered pay wall is closing in its grip, is getting tighter and tighter, as can be harder to dance to the raindrops and read whatever you want on national. You dotcom. Unless you sign up for our plus. You also get a mostly ad free experience that were actually considering making one hundred percent totally ad free. experience. You get to comment on articles on the website, which is the exclusive privilege of honourable members. You get be part of our private facebook group where there is an ongoing discussion about public affairs, and things were writing about discussing and writers netters pop in and out of those conversations, and finally, he get be part of events

Cause. We are planning a couple months here, another and our plus meet up this one down in Washington DC. We ve been a little Le East Coast. drink here international meet up treated one in New York with planning one in Washington, but we will be spreading these events around the country. So, if you remember, please look for those invites in your inbox and finally get to be part of calls. We did our biggest call ever even bigger than any Mccarthy's car. It's hard to believe yesterday with Devon Nunez arrived at all that all these topics and more and added One thing he said, which I found Conny interesting, which I think is, is more dire than your interpretation, but we TIM war. When do you think the more probe end- and he said I don't they as ever ending unless Bilbil

gets in their end and tell them you stop and show your cards and de report the scant extent forever interesting. Ah well, he muttered lucky might be right. So imagine to really a little earlier. So it's it's been a interesting, weaker cell fora for Rudy, whose friend, here a mentor of yours, didn't marry. You necessarily in crisis communications on cable tv, but did you met her you and in how to be a prosecutor and did a very good job, but he he's been Oliver Map, but a couple questions Cohen, we just were just talking about Ninos, first, his eye, you know if this prompted this was talked to him. There was no problem. There is no. We didn't talk to him. There's Trump tower thing which share a little confused where it stands now, but it suggested it gone. Although

and through the election, as you mentioned, and then I guess walked it back. I think there's some other walk back that I'm forgetting now what do you have any other reports, as there have been in force for as long as route has been in this role, that trumpets upset but, on the other hand, Trump likes out aggressive years knee and he's not going anywhere, which sounds sound right me, but when you make this unit, obviously he is in a hostile environment. Doing doing all these interviews in his role as not just to be entirely buttoned up lawyer. He sees out there isn't as advocate as well but but which we make them any. I think rich The greater story- that's going to be written about this some day is that if you look at what happened the term side of the equation, and even on the F B, I thought of the equation alive

If this is going to be explained by the fact that the FBI was absolutely convinced that Hilary was going to win and they took wild and crazy investigative tactical chance, that they ordinarily wouldn't take, and I think on the trumps Lee equation. They were convinced that they will, owing to lose and as a result, you don't things like the Trump Tower Moscow thing were Raw work were ongoing for a long time and that would have been probably in as History was written, it wouldn't have been problematic at all if the if Trump was right for the people who were in in trumps orbit at least were right and he lost just what a gun right back into business. As is said- and I think you Know- with Route

he's dealing with the fall out of that now the problem ridge. The main problem, as we vote in a fight in the past. Is that Rudy is really wearing two hats here. The Trump team is in the in the position of trying to then somebody who is the subject of a criminal investigation. and at the same time defend a public official who has the risk of being impeded. Which is, as you say, highly if I want to say highly likely, but I do want to say that there is a better chance to not that the president will be impeached by the democratic

ass? I think its highly unlikely that he'll be removed, at least if the it it's impossible that he'll be removed. If, if the facts or not, any different than what we understand they are now? But the president, Firstly, does it want to be impeached, even if it is accompanied by removal, so they have had to As well as a legal team handle both the needs of a legal defence and a political defence, and those are two very different things. So the best advice, a criminal defence lawyer can give to his client, who is the subject of a criminal investigation, is to keep it zipped. You don't not to speak now to make statements and that doesn't just go for the client Richard GO also goes the lawyer one of them.

one of the one of the things I think we have focused on enough, but would we could become a problem. especially if the southern district of New York and the special councils office start to think that they actually have an impeach a an obstruction case. Again, The president is that when a lawyer makes public statements and men should be, for that law. The lawyers the agent for the client. And the lawyers statements can be admissible against the client in court. So the problem that you do you have in this. This crazy context is Rudy if they would just its trump was just under a criminal investigation, then Rudy and the President and all the

people in the trunk camp shouldn't be saying anything at all and yet because they want to be the least effective, rebutting the public narrative. If not, If we are, they can't steering the public narrative they feel like they have to be very public and saying things all the time and that may help them in terms of the politics of it. You know that That remains to be seen. We have to see how this all comes out, but it could be a disaster as far is there any criminal proceedings down the road is concerned, because all these statements that are being made may ultimately be admissible. This is why lawyers tell their clients not to speak, so you can be Sympathetic to Rudy in this Instead, he

is is trying to wear these two hats and they are not really possible to wear at the same time effectively and the same time, be very critical of how he's hand this very difficult, if not impossible. Job, and my sense of it, is that a lot of I know what you're dealing with is the impulses of Rudy the a pellet lawyer who, who is knowledgeable any issues I can. I can say from first hand, experience he's he's very, very knowledgeable about the criminal law Verses, Rudy, the gator and the reason I draw distinction is when you do. With somebody who is a lawyer whose well versed in legal principles and a pellet advocate, for example, and rudy- was both a good

The word is those very good on the law and was a top trial lawyer as well, it dropped top in court litigator an investigator, so he keys walked in both worlds and and done well, but when in a pellet lawyer or someone who is it well versed in the principles of the criminal law and academic way has a fact, pattered teed up to him his first impulse is to go to the the ultimate principle, the ultimate question and say you know so what? If this happens? So what? If that happened, because it can end in criminal law billowy anyway, because in his mind, he thinks that the the facts that we're talking about here do not amount to a criminal violation. In theory, that is a an aspect of the law.

Effective the job of the lawyer that doesn't always square up with the job of the litigator, which is not to live in the academic What if world of abstractions and an hypotheticals the litigator has an obligation to actually know the facts of the concrete case that you're dealing with and you don't deal with you know what? If that happened? What, if that happened in great principles of law? You need to know exactly what the facts are, so that you don't make statements that can later come back to two by you and by the court and in the mode that Rudy is in now he really ought to leave the you know the great academic questions to the two hours to the peanut gallery, where you know us,

your nerves can can bouncing around he's representing a client. Now he needs to know the facts and when he does not know the facts you should just not. He should either not comment publicly or he should figure out a way to not in requested while appearing to answer it, but to continue to do so things and make factual assertions on the MRS upon on what I think is his thought that you know look even if they kept discussing trump Tower through the election. What's the big deal, and even if the President talk to Cohen before his testimony but didn't give him a direction to lie, what's the big deal, I dont think he can. I dont think he can effectively do the job. The near impasse,

Bill job that that he's trying to do without having a very strong handle on what actually happened and therefore either trying to steer away from topics where the president has vulnerability or be ready to be ready to refute. Allegations on the basis of we'll command of the facts as they happened, but I think what you seeing now is he's going out in a lot of you interviews where it seems like he doesn't have a good command of the facts. And is relying on his expertise, somebody who's versed in the criminal law, and then you know disaster happened,

some of these interviews, and he has to come back two days later and say that. Well, it turns out that I didn't talk to the president about that and what I was saying was just here statical. Even though, when we watched him say it, it didn't, look like it was hypothetical at all. It look like it was on the basis of these communications with the president, so here either. You know stop doing interviews or not do them. Unless he's completely first on the facts, and that may be difficult for me, I think the presidency very difficult client, but this is not a case where you can wing it and now I think, you're getting an accumulation of a lot of these statements that a roll over the map which, if we were just talking about policy-

that kind of roll, your eyes and say well very goes again, but since there is a you know an undercurrent of the possibility of criminal prosecution here you know he keys to peace. The president's agent and between the crazy things. The president tweets and rubies inconsistent statements. You could see a prosecutor trying to together, a case that could be proved in court. Trying to exploit those things and use them, as is part of the governments case. So unless it one more aspect to this, never get to Call- and I will conclude so the very notion of the Trump Tower negotiation in some form, whether you actually the word negotiations really applies, but there are some aspects of this. This deal gonna rumbling on throughout the campaign. I think all of us agree that an appropriate such conflict should have done it in a bad, but as we too,

about repeatedly and an aspect of this entire thing is that the left trying to make everything in its blameworthy into a criminal offence, and we see this for the Trump Tower meeting our they would have taken some opto from the Russians that be taking something of value. You know from from a foreign entity and that's a violation of a federal statute. Would there be any legal problem with you know that if it's, the negotiation had gone all the way to election day extensive. No now, in fact, you know you see any number of times. This is kind of a commonplace rich in none in it. Instigations, where we end up

Saying the the Washington truism that, though the cover up is worse than the crime, and you know you, you have these investigations where people are making false statements in order to cover up something that turned out not to be criminal in the first place, and I think what what what we sometimes lose by virtue of the fact that. You know the left is always, and I suppose it looking back in the days are Clinton. You know, I think that the right has also been in a position of looking at conduct. That was unsavory, but not necessarily criminal in China flying technical legal violations that you could call out of it. I think what we miss is that in politics,

People tend to to lie and to cover up things, not because the things we're talking about our chrome, violations, but because their embarrassing for political reasons, so that camp is now saying and their quite right about this- that there's absolutely nothing wrong and there was nothing wrong in principle with doing business in Russia and, as as I pointed out on this podcast before. I think that President Trump has a case. When he complains, or were he to complain that on a bipartisan basis, this government, since the time of the Soviet Union fell, has tried to portray Russia as a normal country and try to bring it into the fold of normal countries and tried to create an.

Should that doing business with Russia and trading Russia in you know bring Russia into these big. Multi national institutions that we have is is such that Dealing with Russia is like dealing with England, which was always, to my mind, ridiculous. But that is the way the government has worked and a lot of a lot of people involved in administrations of both parties have done. Business with Russia have taken. Money from Russia have had all kinds of relations with Russia seems that you know suddenly went Trump was elected. He was the guy without a chair when the music stopped all of a sudden. Now we go back to Russia being an important adversary in a geo. Political sense of the United which is something that some of us have been saying,

all along. But now it seems like the Democrats are on board with that, because it's it's politically expedient. So all that would be fine for for the president to stress, to say that until somebody makes it illegal for people commercial transactions with Russia You know knowing that Russia is a is an authority in regime, and you really can't do the kind of business the Trump was doing there without having regime involvement in it. Unless somebody's going to say that that's illegal, of course, it was fine for the Trump Organization to to pursue, economic opportunities in Russia. The problem is as in a political sense, they have, a motive to minimize the president's contacts with Russia and his his business interests in Russia

he came out and flatly said he didn't have business interests. He didn't have deals. He didn't have anything with Russia and the EU way the narrative. The way the political narrative was was developing was that Putin had is hooks in Trump and as the that, the Democrats, it, was basically gonna be pollutants stooge in the White House. So as political matter that the President, and the people around him had a mode to minimize their contacts with Russia. So it's not. The question is not whether the contacts with Russia, where illegal or its whether they had a motive to lie about them, and you know, obviously they did so that's so now the matter becomes. Did they lie about them? we can always thereof. Is there a big cover up under way

That doesn't necessarily mean that what's being covered up with illegal, but it doesn't mean that there is not a cover up. So, let's get finally to Michael Common in the drama of his congressional testimony? He was satisfied us next month and there was a lot of answers passion in the meat among media and the left over this testimony, which they expected legitimately justifiably with good reason, expect we at least very embarrassing for the present and the present went out and is inimitable style and Fox interview. A judge. Janine said you know: people need to start check out microphones, Father

certain sort left at that, then he also did a tweet. You know that was just like what about the Father in LAW and Rudy, who just talking about cited the Father line, and, I think explicitly said there might be a linked to organised crime and am MIKE Cohen just yesterday said: look my family's being threatened. I am fearful for their safety. I can't show up for this testimony. What do you make of it well rich again, we get to something else that we ve talked about any number of times, which is the president's tweets and statements from road. fall into this category because he's the president's agent again for these purposes, there's a big difference between when Somebody like, like you or me or you know, and any guy who's twisted and consuming the news and discussing the sort of stuff there's a big difference between a statement,

about Cohen, like that being made by the average person and a statement like that being made by the President of the Euro it states who runs the justice department- and you Know- is in charge of- executive branch, including agencies, like the FBI at least nominally now. I think that over two plus years of time, we arrived at a kind of a strange place where the press and at least in his mind, has carved out for himself a space where he's just permitted to rant and rave, and were you know why, when he does that supposed to understand that this is just as it speaking and that isn't somehow not talking about not talking as if he were the president of the United States running the executive branch, but unfortunately for him

down here on planet earth? He is the president of the United States, the executive branch and that's how a federal judge would look that's a lot of law enforcement, people and Defence Council would look at it and the way, these kinds of rash com. are going to be evaluated. May not the way that the president means them. In other words, it may not be that you know that the people who were hearing this are going to take it the president ranting and raving and at most a making political points which he would say that he is entitled to do. They are going to take it as the president. the United States, who it has the power to give direction to the Justice Department, the FBI saying that

There ought to be an investigation launched against the sky against his family etc, and there are It is not a frivolous argument whatsoever to contend that this is intimidating. So I think it's it's problematic. It's part of the reason rich why I've said from the beginning of the administration that the president or to stop doing this, I mean I understand the need to do twitter actually sympathise with the need to try to reach over the press coverage, which is very hostile to the president at times. But there are certain areas of governance or that involve governance. That he should not be commenting on and one of the ms pending investigations and a subset of that is pending, invest. nations that involve him, so I just This is really a foolish thing too soon to do and that the present

at this point shouldn't be saying anything about Cohen other. Then you know that matter is, is being get it in the courts in and he'll have no comment on it, but I think you know the day that they taught no comment in school a pair each was absent. I mean just doesn't have that that gene- and I you know rich There have been any number of title we're living now through this sum for the shut down controversy and lo the border wall controversy. in mesh with it, but a lot of the reason that were in the place that wherein it owes to the fact that Trump and in a moment of what I'm sure felt really good at the time, couldn't help himself in this meeting with

the policy and humor like say that I'm perfectly proud to get caught credit for the shut down. I'm never going to blame you for it. I'm I'm proud of doing I'm proud to shut the government down of a border security in the moment, I'm sure he got some catharsis that but They ve hung around his neck now for for four weeks and at that meeting was was a debacle because it not only that it also in anti policy. She's gonna get issues it becomes bigger anyway, but add up appointed, those was pretty hard for her, and then she was seen to Vienna Clinical stood up to trumpet and helped her a lot, but you're trump you'd do so right. meeting our along was to twenty minutes half an hour, but for almost the entire

tardy that you could see him walking up to the precipice descent. Ghana take ownership, but controlling himself and staying on the right side of that. Just at the areas like screw it, yet my shut down I'll, take it on rich. If I could, you say in the same vein, we ve already. This is not like we're talking about an abstract hypothetical problem. We have already had a situation where both Bergdorf the of the disaster, why was tried for that? The actions that he took that ended up, we're, probably causing costing the lines of, the sum of the soldiers who were sent to look for him. He ended up getting a much lighter sentence. Then he should have gotten precisely because president

Prompt decided to weigh in on what should happen to him. An idiot did appraising a big command influence issue in the sentence and in order avoid palate ones down. The road which ended up happening was the that the court gave Bergdorf much lighter satin, so that they could show that they were not being unduly influenced by the commander in chief to give the harsh sentence. The trump was calling for- and that's that's only the best example that in a number of these examples but when the president of the United States ways in on criminal investigations in criminal proceedings, that's not like some commentators in the cheap seats weighing in that's the guy, who actually runs the Justice Department and has an

Letty to influence proceeding. So I just think this is really perilous and it's not like it's been without cost, Gwen sir. It's not like what you know we ve been warning about. This is something that could become a problem in the future. It's been a problem all along so at last say on s last thing. For this episode, your skeptical, though, all that sad that car, whatever testify regardless yeah. Well, I think that Cohen is. There is good reason to deduce Ridge. The Kohen has other criminal liability than what we have already heard about. He could have helped himself a lot. In these southern district of New York and the more investigation but also this in particular, the southern district of New York were the main case against him. Was he could have helped himself a lot potentially gotten a no jail sentence if he would have agreed to become a cooperating witness

Now you could say that he seems to be cooperating, but he's not a cooperate or, as the term of art is understood that, particularly in the southern district of New York, where I work for a long time to be a cooperate, her you need to cut a deal with the from where you agree to tell them everything you ve ever done from cradle up until that point, your life, every crime you ve ever committed and then their usual way of handling it is you have to plead guilty to the worst stuff. You have to three to tell the government everything and be truthful and if you comply with, the terms of your cooperate. Should agreement at the end, they can file a motion with the set judge, which allows the sentencing judge, give you as little as zero time or poor time served. That's a cooperative Cohen was besieged to become a cooperative and declined

and that's on the circumstances where he actually has given the government a good deal of help on at least some of the things they know about. With respect to you know tramp in the hush money payments in the tower- and you know some of the transactions that they caught him on in the southern district of New York, but he declined to become a cooperative and you can all. I can only can oh, that he did that, because this other skeletons in the closet that he doesn't think they know about and that he'd have to disclose and it seems to me under those circumstances, then he still alive. Fifth, amendment privilege the fact that he's plight guilty and he's disposed of these two

four cases, one from dollar, one from the Sdn. Why that that doesn't mean that that's the end of his potential criminal liability. I dont think he was ever going to testify in the Senate anyway, because he knew that the Republicans would be going to school on em and would probably ask him some questions. He prefer not to answer. So I ever really thought that he go through with this, and I think now that you know he's saying that he doesn't want to go through with it, because he feels like he's being threatened by the President. I highly doubt that's the case. I think the reason you want to go through with it is the same reason. He didn't want to be a cooperative when the southern district asked him to which is at the gates of the stuff out there all right. That's all the time we have been listening to a national. You pod, cast a pot gases been produced by the incomparable, Sarah, surely thanks, everyone for listening and thank you, Annie. Mccarthy, thanks rich