I'm Rich Lowry, editor of national view and host for podcast called funnily enough. The editors, free week on the editors I discussed with my colleagues to latest news and national controversies to cut through the can't get beyond the lies and spin and provide insight and fax you're not going to get anywhere else, while having a good time doing it. In this era of folly, myth and hysteria, you owe it to yourself to check the editors you can find it on Google play stature tuna in Itunes. We hope to see you soon. Welcome to you Special Edition of the Mccarthy report, I guess we're I rich Larry, discuss with Andy Mccarthy,

former Mahler Report and other legal and national security issues today. What else The bar letter and rob Molly s, findings, you listening to a national view. Pod cast podcast, unnatural dot. Com were delighted to have you, but we easier for you and better for us to be made as part of your feet at Google Place teacher tune in, and I tunes, and please give this podcast an Anti Mccarthy all the fulsome praise they deserve. And a review on Itunes and now without further ado with, but with great anticipation. I welcome to this point, had cast through the miracle Skype none other than any Mccarthy moratoria very good feels I feel like I want something. I won the lottery as a surprise. It just my emotional reaction to this up in the Finding didn't really surprised me that much certainly with regard to collusion by

somehow. I agree it with great relief bordering on elation. Here I was surprisingly giddy over it too, and I think not so much a year. I think it's good for the country when there has been an allegation. That's been treated seriously that the President of the United States is a foreign agent. If we get a reliable conclusion from somebody, who's looked at it hard that that's not the case. We should all be relieved, but you know. I think, in the analysis of this rich, we do the best we can offer a long time, but a lot of times your really operating on an important information deficit. All you can do is do the best. You can, the basis of what you have and what common sense tells you they must be up

but you never really know until there's a despised, withdraw rotative, finding you ve been right or not, so you feel like you're still your chin out a lot, and I had the feeling here of the same. And a feeling I had as a prosecutor, when you do a long investigation and then you start a trial and in the middle of the trial or at some point during the trial. One of the debate and besides I've had enough. He decides to plead guilty and then he gets up in court at the guilty plea and he tells the judge that he's guilty of what you accused him of and we You know what your investigation indicated for however long you were added, I always even though I was very, confident in our cases. If I felt strong enough to indict them, you always

this sort of sense of relief when somebody gets up important says that happened, and I did it even few beginner, even if it doesn't enough in the greatest of things mean that you, or decision making would have been different or you know with any better or worse. It's always good to have somebody. Who's, authoritative, are in a position to confirm things. Get up and said: This is what happened yeah. Well, I'm here be very proud and we are very proud of all all the work he has done on this. It was a spy on any very modestly, say you and your comments on this pod. You say we all the time buzz you and your analysis and you know. Occasionally I wonder. At the back of my mind, you had a lot of confidence. You areas is a little bit too far. I dare say: there's, there's no collusion need our kind of, but

trust me in my view, and I feel more confident saying let us say it, but I always kind of wondered. What does he really know, but They rich links that it. That's. That's why out here with me, that's periodical avoided the we not without good. Thank you very much. It's that's very kind. Have you and I am very proud of the Way National Review has worked. This thing I think that we have heard from are platform. Every argument that could be made on every respectable that could be made on Ray side of all the different questions that have come up in the last two years and I We thought that, even though even things, I disagreed with they were run, they will argue robustly, but their argued with with respect.

And that we are all able to even in a heavily fraud charged atmosphere able maintainer civility and friendship when we argued with each other, which is important javascript. So I thought we divide. This apple talk a little bit about that seclusion segment. The obstruction saying that a little more ambiguity, maybe a final evaluation of Mars performance, and that some thoughts on on where this, where this girl could actually congresses, isn't letting go. So, first of all on Russia that sentence that bar quotes from the Mulder report about there being no evidence of collusion or coordination and seemed like that word. Coordination is very important to seem to go beyond you know. A legal conspiracy term to a broader gonna come

such a call term seem just extremely authoritative and all those out some people on on left on Twitter, trying to find ways to read this in a way that it does not say what it actually says in the black and white seems very conclusive, yeah. I think rich, that it is very conclusive the word coordination is edge. You suggest very me meaningful, not just because it is you cut when you combine it with collusion, it's obviously meant to be expansive in terms of What is now obviously the exoneration of Trump and his campaign on their charge, but I think importantly, it's the that was used by J call me when he first one public. I think, improperly, about the instigation? He said that not only was the FBI conducting.

Counter intelligence investigation of Russia's interference in the election, but they were all looking at any coordination. That was the word he used between the trunk campaign and Russia's Russia's efforts in that regard and now, same thing. We now know we didn't know it at the time but we now know that same theme was exactly what the Justice Department and FBI were telling the foreign intelligent surveillance court in court proceedings to get warrants to investigate trumps campaign. So I think it is significant. That you use that word. I think it significant that he not only cleared tromp on this, but bar made clear in his letter that the principles that apply to the potential indictment of a president of the United States. You know the Justice Department guidance that says that you can't indicted sitting president

That that had no bearing on the conclusion, I think the iter. The general wanted to make it clear that this was Ben exoneration on the merits that it was not something that was eyes by the potential complexities and constitutional difficulties of actually charging appraisal while he's an office, so is smaller than effectively saying, given his extensive investigation that the things that are routinely throwing out in the political debate, as not only being evidence of collusion, but actually being collusion. The Trump Tower Meeting Man Fort sharing Appalling, with with the shady ukrainian associates that that this is more saying. No, that that wasn't collusion in that wasn't. Coordination,

think it is him saying that that it, that those bits of information or the those pieces of evidence which he looked at we're not Legally, something that could make out a collusion case. I think you know as well said again and again, and again, collusion with a very malleable elastic. I call it a weasel words, because it's not a crime in and of itself is used as a proxy for conspiracy, and the only potential conspiracy here was complicity by the trauma campaign in something that was actually a crime, which was the hacking that the Russians did of the democratic email accounts, and I think, interestingly rich. I think Mahler should come in for some criticism here, because looking at the time line, I think

The special council knew too close to a certainty that there was no collusion by autumn of twenty seventeen and the reason I say that is the last five a warrant that they got for court occasion and left remind or listeners when they went to the fire. A court that foreign intelligence surveillance cord to get warrants in this case against Stir Carter page, was a former Trump campaign adviser. They told the the Pfizer Court flatly that the F B, I believed the Trump campaign was complicit in Russia's efforts, which they had described as cyber espionage efforts to influence the campaign. This is perhaps

in and what we now know is the the propaganda operation, the troll form case each time. The FBI and the Justice Department went to the fire a court. They made that allegation and while we haven't seen a lot of the warrants, does good reason to think that they laid out the claim that the term campaign with poor man afford as kind of the point and was involved in this arrangement with Russia, which involved the hacking operation and that the Trump campaign, People were well aware that that always going on, so they went back to the fire, a court initially getting a warrant in October of twenty. Sixteen they want. Back in January, before Obama was out of office, then they went back again in April and in June, the fire a warrant would have been up, for,

real authorization. That is, if the Justice Department and the FBI, still believed that the Trump campaign was complicit in Russia's cyber espionage operations to the man of the page warrant would. Been due to be renewed in September of twenty seventeen, and I think it's interesting that I'm kind of willing to give Mahler pass on the Pfizer RE authorization that happened in in June, because that would have been June of twenty seventeen, because that would have been just a few weeks after he had got on board. He was probably still trying to get on top of everything, but by September I think it's very interest thing that they not only don't go back to the fire, a court to get a warrant, but by then every body

who was involved in going to the fire a court is gone. Commie is gone, Och has been removed from the investigation. Lisa page has resigned, endemic aid is under investigation by the Inspector General Baker. The chief counselor, FBI has been reassigned and is also under investigation by the inspector general. So everybody was involved in going to the fire, a court with this unverified Clinton campaign, opposition research screen has been sidelined in the investigation and now, that mauler is completely in charge of it and again, let's, let's be clear

the one thing that the assignment of this case to a special council did in May of twenty. Seventeen is rest control of a counter until joint investigation from the FBI and put it in the hands of Robert Mauler Prosecutor and that's unusual because prosecutors don't run counter intelligence investigations. The FBI, does so. What they did by putting Mahler in was take control of this investigation away from the people who had been running it and by September of twenty seventeen. A determination was made that you know when I go back to the fire court again, so I think by late twenty seventeen mauler, knew that there was no collusion case. And yet this event negation went on for another year and a half and naturally in continuing

because collusion is such an elastic term, anything that was along the lines of association or concerted activity between Trump people and Russians. Even if, with far removed from anything that actually criminal or from hacking was used to prop up the collusion narrative. So how do we? How do we looked down at the FBI and Us Pfizer warrants? I'm if they're saying today is not haven't nailed down. How bad is that what you're saying someone was complicit when they they weren't? I think it's, Terrible, I mean you know, look the FBI's own proceed yours which, by the way, were developed ones. Albert Mahler was the director of the FBI and were acted with the supervision of the of the justice

but I believe that you are the last set them back. Mother was why I think judge Lucchese, He was attorney general signed off on some procedures and then our colder signed off on on on similar procedures to the extent they were tweaked a little bit, but these, procedures, require that that no information be presented to the foreign intelligence surveillance court unless it has been verified and, in fact, the the application that the Justice Department, the F b I present to the Pfizer court, says in big

capital block printed letters on the top of, I think, maybe on the top of every page, but certainly on the top of the first page of the application. It says, verified application and that's rich. You know, based on what we ve talked about in connection with Kanner intelligence procedures, the only due process that an American gets in. The flies Accord Court proceedings is if the FBI honours its procedures and the Pfizer court you know keeps. I want to make sure that they do because it's not like a criminal case where you're, eventually to get discovery of all. Underlying warrants and warrant applications, and you can make all kinds emotions to suppress this is counter intelligence. It's not criminal did not. Building a case did just gathering intelligence and what they are asking for is court permission to spy on you

And since you're never going to find out about it because it's classified and top secret, the only protection you get is if they follow their procedures, and I don't see how any I can say here that they followed their procedures. It simply not an adequate answer to say that we believe Christopher Steel. So we weren't concerned about. His underlying sources. Christopher steel was not a source of the information that they asked the court to issue warrants based on. He was the person who basically collected the information together, but he did not make any observation. He did not see or hear the things that the court was asked to base the warrants on And that's not suppose, that's not verification, corroboration and its astonishing to me that even at the time

by the time Mahler was appointed in May of twenty. Seventeen call me is all ready telling congressional investigators that, the information from the warrant is not corroborated that it's not verified and yet their continuing to go to devise a court. Even at that point with the warrant, So I want to get into a little later, but we're coming into its must, keep with it. So so what consequences? Should there be a lot of people? The right are now saying: aright with weak. We see this as was always uh, there's nothing there, but a spot up into something that consume the country for two years and rude or people's lives. Release made them pale out of legal fees. So let's go after the people who started this. What would you think of that sentiment and is their evil, any legal jeopardy on the part?

people who crafted a deeply flawed five application. I am not so sure that there is legal jeopardy and not all that concerned about it. Because I I've always been of the mind rich- and maybe this But you know a couple years ago I wrote a book about impeachment and one of the things that done

hit me over the head riding it like a hammer. Is that most of the bad things or a lot of the bad things that happen when you're talking about abuse of power are not actually violations of the criminal law. So it seems to me that there is a lot bigger problem. At least my perspective is that there is a lot bigger problems to focus on then whether people should be convicted of crimes and go to jail, much more important for our body politic and for making sure that something like this never happens again. Is that you get complete accountability, that we have a full record of what happened. If it turns out the people, it'd prosecutable offences. You could deal with that at the time, but that's not as important as finding out exactly what happened and understanding whether this is a flaw in the people who we repose trusted by giving them these enormous powers or if it's something in the law,

itself that we have you. You know where we have some gap that we're not addressing something that needs to be addressed, but I think that has to be done, irrespective of whether it gets anybody jammed up is or is criminal charges are concerned, and the other reason I think it's really important that this happen is. You know criminal trial. You dont get just the government's version of what happened. You don't get the prosecutors version of what happened in a criminal trial. What happens is in discovery. They have to give you that is the guy It has to give you not just the evidence that they are going to use and what they're gonna allege about you in open court. They also have to give you all of the underlying potentially exculpatory information- and they have to give you all

of the underlying documents and cord authorizations and the like that they used to collect evident and then what happens in the public trial rich is the jury. Doesn't just get the governments version of what happened. The defendant actually has the opportunity, as we say, to put the government on trial. That is that the defence can say: no! No, no look. I was railroaded here and here's how they collected evidence and here's how they misrepresented things to the court and here's where they didn't follow their own rules now usually that defence fall flat. But here I think, there's a lot of reason to think that there are improprieties, clearly happen and they happened under circumstances where there are not actually prosecutable offences against the president, so it seems to me that you know if the demo that's going to Ranten Rave, that we

you know it's not enough to have a four page letter from bar telling us what the conclusion work, even though, in a normal case when the Justice Department doesn't bring charges, you don't get any information here. The attorney. I was laid out what the special council has concluded, but if you're going to air out the prosecution, means evidence here and we're gonna get the governments version of a of events in the best light to the government of what Trump did in and I'm a trial trump would be able to respond to that by saying well here, investigative tactics of the investigative improprieties that were used here and you would be able to argue today jury, do you really want to convict somebody on the basis of of these kinds of investigative tactics? So I think you know look if, if we're gonna have disclosure as if this were a legal proceedings as if there were a trial than let's have all of it. Lets, let's evaluate the whole thing. What's not, you know just get me.

Or is version of events. Let's find out exactly what you would be able to close if you were a defendant who is on trial, so a sock about the obstruction aspect, Khazars, more ambiguity, there bar says that mauler didn't didn't exonerate Trump on that score, that he just sets out the fact soon and that the case on each side but doesn't reach a conclusion on the legal question. So how do you read that and the significance of it? I think it's a real dereliction of duty on Mars port. I just said a couple minutes ago, rich that I dont think I think Mahler knew that there was no collusion case to be given the benefit of the doubt by the end of twenty seventeen. You know about a year and a half ago, and I also think this investigation and was was really launched, with really triggered on and on and on

creation of obstruction. Not on collusion or was appointed right after James call me, was fired and right after by Vice President Trump and right after we now know that Andy Mackay, the acting the eye director after Commie was removed, who had been the deputy. The Mahler was appointed right after the cave, opened an FBI investigation of obstruction by by pro in tromp, so this was really more of an obstruction investigation than anything else. It was pursued that way for more than almost for two years, and from mother to come down at the end and say I am not going to make a traditional prosecutor oral finding here. I'm just gonna lay out the facts and lets body else decide. Well what the hell did. We need him, for I mean the only

his only job rich was to make a prosecutor real finding of whether there was obstruction or not. If he wasn't going to do that, then you know. I know I've been saying that we didn't need a special council, because you know that the legal products for having one Warren satisfied but once we had one, you had a figure that at least the guy was gonna do what he was appointed to do right, which is make a decision. But where the charges should be broader, not which he won't do so now have to ask yourself. Why won't he do it, and I think here we see the in Four winds of the memorandum that now turning general bore wrote to the Justice Department as a concern, former attorney general addressing what was apparently the theory of absurd. Action that mauler was following.

Words Mahler, who I, who I think we need to remind people you. I've never been, as, as I think, people who listen to our podcast now I've. I've been very critical of smaller, but I've never been one of these people to say you know he's a corrupt guy he's dishonesty is a bad cop, but I do think there were a lot of impasse. Friday's. In this investigation there were improprieties b where he came along, and I think there been improprieties since Don't think this was a model investigation in the fact that I cannot get a attack. Mahler doesn't think it doesn't mean that I don't think there were flaws here, because I think that clearly were and That is the fact that he won't make the main decision that he was asked to make, I think, is very telling. But what happened here I think, is that bore in his memo. In enrolled,

and on constitutional principles amount. In law and Justice Department Guidelines lays out in a very compelling way why the obstruction theory that mothers staff conjured up, namely the idea that you could cite a president for obstruction based on lawful exercises his constitutional prerogatives on the basis of some prosecutor, saying that he thinks that those exercises, those lawful exercises of of costs who should prerogative, might have been improperly motivated is not a theory of obstruction that ever should have flown and as bore, pointed out in his in his memorandum. It's a theory of obstruction that, if we adopted would I only be terribly harmful to the presidency, would make it difficult for the Justice Department to function

because you'd be in a situation where, let's say almost who prosecutor and I decide for personnel reasons two reassign, a prosecutor, who is on one case to another case, if some, if some the prosecutor came along later and decided that may be. My motive was improper for making what was routine personnel decision. I could actually be investigated for obstruction on the basis of that which is which is crazy and would would actually hamstring the department to the point where it would be very difficult for it to fund so I think Mahler for a long time pursued an obstruction theory that was legally and constitutionally untenable and practically on sound. And now, when bars, the bar became attorney general and his memo was exposed

was clear to Mahler that if he was going to follow the jobs, action theory that he had been investigated. On the basis of that, Ernie general was probably not going to sign off on that, because it's not legally viable obstruction theory, and I suppose that we should be grateful that Mahler didn't press the point. But I think that what he did here was returned aid on the theory that he had been following to pursue the obstruction investigation, knowing that, if he dump this whole thing in bars lap, What was clearly going to happen was bar was going to find that there was no viable obstruction case, and I think, if you look at bars letter about Mars, findings and you lay at side by side with a memo which lays out the real. And why are the theory that more

was following was not a viable theory? You will see you can almost tick off the places where the memo is the basis for bars conclusion, along with the rose and Stein, apparently that there was no obstruction case, but I just think it was it. Was we easily for Mahler after two years to not plan is beaten? Tell us, you know, is it an obstruction, Kay the resident and what I particularly reason about it, and maybe this is just cause. I was a prosecutor for a long time. Prosecutors don't exonerate people. You know it's for the public to decide on the basis of Halleck. He comes out whether somebody's been exonerated or not. By the fact that they haven't been prosecuted or haven't been prosecuted successfully, what prosecutors do, as they say, either there's enough evidence- and I

I urge the case where there is not enough evidence, and I dont charge the case, and I leave it to the public to decide what that would mean. You didn't hear Mahler come out and say I exonerate President Trump on the collusion allegation. He simply said does not enough evidence to charge we're not charging, but he went on this way on the obstruction thing to say- I'm not making a decision. So I'm not either alleging it and I'm not exonerating him. Well, that's not what we brought him in for you know and well. That really does give trumps detractors of political talking point, but it's an application of what Mahler was hired for, which was to make precisely that decision. So So you say, then, if you think that is

Mauler had had the proper legal theory about obstruction in this case that the investigation would have ended a year and a half earlier. But I wouldn't wooden have gone down this road. I think it should have you know, I think you are, to my mind, trumps original lawyers had the best approach for dealing with smaller. Which was the traditional experience, criminal defence approach, of not saying anything that would provoke the prosecutor, not saying anything that would make things worse, I mean look, no matter what you think of what Mahler did hear. Tromp was his own worst enemy here he may had very good reasons, particularly in his own mind, to say that you know this was a witch hunt and it was unfair and

you know Mahler was dirty cop and he added all these angry democratic in his own mind I'm sure he he felt like he was being treated in a terribly unfair fashion and therefore was Kay because he is who used to carry on that way. But any good lawyer- will tell you that even if, in some cosmic sense. Your justified in doing this. You are interfering if you're the press, the United States, your interfering with the prosecutors ability to conduct investigation and when every you interfere you're going to be accused, or at least at its colourable, that you could be accused of obstructing the investigation. You don't to do that, so I'm sure trumps lawyers were trying to keep him. You know sort of pipe down and they were quietly trying to cooperate with smaller investigation, given the information he wanted. But what should? happen in that exchange was the defenceless,

should have been made. Aware of this is what Molly s theory of obstruction is, and you know I think, that, if more been following a proper theory. Ovens of obstruction, Trump wouldn't have on a number of things that elongated the investigation his lawyers would have been able to tell him you know look, this is all going to be fine. Just you know I've down and and relax and let it play out- and I think it would have played out much faster, but it in fact I think they pushed the envelope on what could conceivably be a charge obstruction and they might even follow through with an aggressive obstruction charge. Had it not been for the fact that they knew the Justice Department was now being run by people who, actually you know,

follow the law. No, what the law is an we're, not going permit an adventurous obstruction charges and rich. I don't mean to make a political statement out of this, because I don't think it. It should be one what bar said. I think it is something that would be true Oh no matter who the president is, which is that indicting President of the United States is such a profoundly distressing thing for the country that should not shrink from doing it, because the president can't be above the law, but we ought to make damn sure. It's a really serious crime that nobody can question in terms of whether it's actually criminal behaviour or not. You don't want to get in the adventurous in charging the president, because.

You know that might be very interesting for the prosecutors in the investigators, but for the country it's an awful thing, and you know. But again I think it's great to live in a country where no one's above the law and where the president can and should be investigated worry commits a clear crime but where he has in its really damaging to the country to have a president under a cloud of criminal suspicion. So one last thing in the pauses and will dig in some other stuff, but so if your theory is right that Mahler knew by late twenty seventeen. Why wouldn't? He has issued an interim report saying that a kind of

lessening conduct the poison in intensity around this investigation one and to what was the seeming squeezing a poor man afford about. If you already knew that the closure case wasn't there, while I think number one on on the first port, let's not forget that more the boss here right. It's not at all unusual for the prosecutor to decide that not in life is more important than his case in his investigation, and it's really supposed to be for the supervision at the Justice Department. Here that would have been right, rose and Stein. The acting attorney general in this matter to bring Molly, ran and say you know, look what do you got coups December

The geisha is really harming the approach that the president's ability to govern its harming the country. We're gonna, give you as much rain as we can in a free rein, as we can give you two conducting the, but you know where we add and if roses dine had, where's that issue. I think we could have had an interim report, but I think it's a lot to ask ball ripen critical, immoral. But it's it's a lot to ask him. You know both to be the guy who runs the investigation and to thank for the country. In terms of you know the is my investor they should more important than the effective. My investigation on the president's ability to govern when we if somebody who's hired to take care that, namely you know the guy who supervising Mahler so, I think,

to me. The criticism for that goes to the goes to two and Stein and the Justice Department. I do think there should have been interim reports. I also think there was much much too much emphasis here on investigative secrecy I mean I'm sure if Rosen Stein had asked for an interim report. What what any prosecutor would have said to him is, if I put this out publicly, it's gonna hurt my investigation of X Y and the other people who are looking at and it would have been for Stein at that point to say, yeah well. In most cases, investigative secrecy is highest priority, but not in this one we're an investigation is affected, the ability of the country to govern itself. So you know, I think, that's that's what should happen with as far as interim reports and investigative secrecy is, third. As far as man afford is concerned, you don't I dont know that as long as Mahler was

Run with this investigation, he was going to chase down every single lead- and I think we can forget rich and- and this is clear as well from bars report that bars letter about Mars report that Mahler did regard his first responsibility in this investigation as getting to the bottom of Russia's interference with the election, irrespective of Trump. What did Russia do here, and I think man afford and gates were both witnesses that he thought were relevant not only to any potential trump campaign collusion, but because of their prior relationships with Kremlin connected oligarchs, mainly from Ukraine, that was that was a poorly investigation and I think he needed- or he felt he needed to button down before he could close cells

Very briefly, I had to do a brief and our plus plug, and one should sign up if you have no ready for an hour plus, is the only way to get access to all of our content, clean print magazine, content and web exclusive content, that is behind our metered pay wall. You also get invited to exclusive calls at events. We are delighted to have it and our plus call coming up tomorrow with our friend the great Ben ship, there are expected to be a biggest call ever and also later this week we have in our plus meet up and why DC. We're gonna gather in a bar with their rights. There's editors and some other conservative friends and at our pus members to hoist twice the pilots and getting we each other a little better. So if you're already part of our plus

and your anywhere in the Washington DC area check out your inbox. He already had an invitation sent to you, I believe, late Friday afternoon, so you might have missed it. Probably another minor too, will be going out, but we'd love see you later this week and Washington D C. So any software you you're here a lot of women and the competent We in the mainstream media is waiting and whose bill bar to make the regal call about whether this constituted obstruction or not he's conflict areas. Appointed by the President and what mauler really wanted. Surely in this report, is not to leave the call to the attorney general but to leave the call to Congress. So

the age you shouldn't be interposing himself and his contestable interpretation of what obstructionist and this whole matter. Once its did Congress to decide. I think the rover thinking it rich, I mean it. I obviously there right now, everything that they they placed their hopes and dreams, for two years has come a cropper. So obviously they need to to say something. So I guess that's what they're going to fill the air was, but the fact of the matter is Congress has the last word whether Mahler intended them to have it or not, and Congress doesn't need a crime in order to impeach. So the thought that you no more didn't want bar to make the fight decision he wanted for Congress to make the final. You know I mean

the decision that had to be made between bar and mauler was whether there was a prosecutable crime. Here, that's close to the relevant to the question that before Congress, which is whether there is an impenetrable offence, and unlike a prosecutor who needs and indicted bull offence, Congress doesn't need one and Congress can impeach if they think the President abuses powers. Congress can impeach if they think that resident indulged in collusion just so, which was so off the charts unsavory that, even if it isn't indicted, bore prosecutable it still enough of an abusive activity that it can warrant impeachment. They don't need, and indeed a ball obstruction case in order to impeach over it

and they don't need Bob Mauler or Bill bar to respect. Wait over you know whether they get the last word or not, and in what the investigation that gets presented or that that the justice too, and finally sign off on what that ultimately looks like was it doesn't buying Congress in any way. So what you expected to happen now, bar as he said in the letter, is reviewing to see what's appropriate, to release or not, and then you'd expect him to, release more rather than lessons sooner rather than later yeah. I really think that were apt to get most of the report. I was really, but I must say I was surprised that what he mainly relied on in terms of holding back the report for present purposes, is

and jury information. And while the justice Depart. Always says that you know their appending investigations and they need to hold back information for the integrity of those investigations. Congress is not always very impressed by that rationale, but at the same time, the Justice Department, if the Justice Department has appending investigation, even if Congress demands information that the Justice Department usually ignores those demands and and nothing comes of it. But as far as the grand jury hurdle is concerned, which is really not much of a hurdle You know the Justice Department can go to the court and ask for permission to disclose the grand jury formation in cork in order it disclosed? So you know, I dont really see that as much of a hurdle. I expected that the justice

I was going to say. You know we need to defend. The very sound principle that when people are charged with crimes, we don't release the full investigation because we don't you know I want to convey people in the court of public opinion. You you're the only one to accuse people of wrong doing when they have all the rights that the constitution gives them in due process too to defend themselves. So but I thought they'd be more on that- and I thought they'd be more because this was a counter intelligence investigation. I thought there would be more on the idea that's a lot of this information is classified and it would harm it would potentially harm NASH, we'll security to reveal it. So we have to withhold it there really. Is it Roger that at all in bars letter? So I think it's really just a matter of not

turning over the grand jury material and not publicizing anything that might compromise. In some way these tangential other investigations that are ongoing- I imagine that will get almost all this report more probably get a pretty soon so, and I could have an epic constitutional battle. Is people were saying last several days over whether report be revealed, this could be revealed. Well, we might, but you know I mean it not all of it will be revealed some little inevitably be withheld and I think out of that, you'll get a tempest and a teapot because get a no good deed is ever gonna go unpunished with the Democrats of bar gives them everything, but a comma they're going to say that the com is the big cover up right, so right you know unless he's gotta ticket. But to my mind, unless he's gotta give them everything, then

might as well with all everything, because you're gonna get accused of it anyhow. So what's your best guess now, where Democrats go with that, I I've been a pretty firm believer that they'd end up impeaching trump, now, a kind of wonder. I think it it's it's. The least much harder today than it was said two days ago, but what do you think? The Democrats, how does with this now, while I think they are going to continue to pursue the other investigate? Instead, they ve already started with trumpet. You know, I think we talked a couple of weeks ago, rich about all these debates, for information the Jerry Adler, the the chairman of the Judiciary Committee put out, and I think that now Adler in doing that, saw the handwriting on the wall that the mauler investigation wasn't going to come too much

and that they were already onto to plan b even before they knew what the final outcome of the more investigation was. So I think there yeah they continue to make demands or Mars. In Malta's report there were also bar, I hope, Is- to be more. That is going to be more of a mind to hold back. Underlying information, at least, if it's from you no witnesses who were difficult to get cooperate. In France, more were made promises of whatever confidentiality promises were made to them in order to get them to give information to the special councils investigation. I think it's one thing to give the report. I think it's all. You need to be a lot more careful about giving out the underlying information, but the Democrats will be demanding

That is well, you know all the testimony etc, and I think you know the dynamic yours Graham in the Senate, Judiciary Committee. Does that he's ready to go forebore on an investigation of the investigators. You know what exactly happened, how this information was acquired heard how the investigation was initiated, what they did when they went to the flies court. What efforts were made to corroborate the information? I think all that stuff needs to be shared out and it ought to be shared out at the same time. So I imagine what will happen is if the Democrats want to turn this into. You know, collusion, slash obstruction, investigation to point out in the house, then I imagine that Graham will turn it into an negation of the investigators and the Senate, so that at least will have a lay at a level playing field

in terms of what the what the disclosure is and then we ll see how it plays out my my own feeling about for a while has been that you know the Democrats, because their base badly wants Trump impeached that if they find something impeach of all, they want to impeach him and ill and they'll impeach him. But I also think The main goal here has always been to make Trump unelectable when it gets around too you know, the late summer early autumn, move of twenty. Sixteen that's what this is really been about from the beginning, and I China, even though, even in the reaction to the Mauler report Lord and Bars letter about it. Have you noticed rich in the last couple of days,

it seems to be juxtaposed almost equally now to inform you know to news reporting about the the doings of the democratic candidates for the for the nomination and Logistics me that you can already see the politics of of twenty twenty kind of overwhelming this, because it turned out to be something of a nothing brighter. Well, let's leave it there This has been the epic first Post, Mahler probe episode of Mccarthy report. This podcast has been produced by the incomparable. Sarah shitty thanks everyone for listening, and thank you any Mccarthy thanks rich