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 can't, get beyond the lies and spin and provide insight and fax 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, soon it and I tunes we hope to see you soon. Welcome to the Mccarthy report this week with me Charles Cook, instead of rich learn whose on vacation- and we were gonna talk about politics this week and even instead,

we spend the whole our on tonight's Yankees meant scammers. That's what I thought Charlie. I expected to find you giving us a report on the Yankee Series in Boston Boston in London over the weekend. I wanted to go I really wanted to go about the timing didn't work. I tried to get my family together and didn't and now, because they read the reports on the beach, see there really regressing not having gone cause you're too incredible Games games, almost gave me heart attack, but yes, games of baseball. I mean, I think, irrespective of the fact the Yankees one them. If you were a neutral, if you just like, so what what a great way to spend nine hours doubt watching those those games. That anyway, was probably good we're doing this before tonight, because one of us will be sulking.

Tomorrow morning half an hour, but I've been talking all season shortly, but it's my default setting anyhow away from Facebook and onto inside baseball. Perhaps Roma Mala is destined to testify before Congress in It is now, Sir fifteen days yeah devised, seventeenth in front of the house. Why should we look for to be trying to narrow the scope of inquiry. Why I We thought that on me twenty ninth, when he gave his press conference that he had given the Democrats, everything that they could hope for and the importance of that is there obviously running the investigations, Jerry Adler at the tradition, our Committee and Adam Schiff?

intelligence committee, and I thought that yeah what what mauler gave them in that press conference was the strong suggestion that he would have indicted President Trump had it not been for office of legal counsel, guidance that prevents. The Justice Department from indicting sitting president and to that point. Attorney General BAR had testified that that guidance thee. It's called the LLC guidance. The office of legal counsel. Guidance from the justice We had not had anything to do with me. Where's decision not to recommend It is against president tromp. I thought that after Mars, press conference

it was a marquis assurance at best and the Democrats, I don't think it's hope for more than that, because I don't think Mahler Is- is ready to plant his feet and say that the that the president should have been in vain. It's just that he couldn't exonerate in which United pointed out, as I pointed out, is kind about the two should only I think offensive. I want to say dubious, but it's a it's. It's actually much worse than that that the standard of the you know not exonerated is proposed for us, but it's the one that I think that it is politically the best at the Democrats could have hoped for from all our. So I kind of expected that after that,

press conference NAD Lowood low key? What up until that point had been some pretty aggressive rhetoric about calling Mahler to testify, because I I I just don't think again better for them with him in their speaking and and responding to questions, and I think what I've tried to do ever since then. Is have an arrangement where he can come in to testify, but that its brief so that they can say that they do it in a very controlled atmosphere, so that can't get much worse for them than it already is and as a result, I think that you have peculiar scared all that they have come up with something idea is Molly, is going to testify before the judiciary, Andy

elegance committees, the sessions the public sessions in you are going to be limited, two hours and then also be a session behind closed doors with each committee at smaller, will have the assistance of people from his staff which I assumed to be people like Andrew Wiseman, Michael driven the senior of his staff. A really, I think, did most of the work on the investigation and I just think that's really objectionable on a number of levels. I just Charlie. Might myself testified before Intelligence committee for three hours. I guess it was about two weeks ago now and I can imagine that they could have three hours of questions for me about and volume of, Molly S report and be content

with two hours. Questions for smaller really does it make any any to me it all. Its clearly in a way that all the questions that oughta be asked of smaller not be able to be asked, and it does heighten what I think are colorable concerns that Mahler was more of a figure than somebody who actually ran. This investigation at sea like they want to one that they want to have the action in these hearings in the closed sessions where it'll be People like Weissmann rather than Mahler, who are more familiar with with heavy investigation was conducted in what it? What it found then mauler is, and I did it to me like they. You know they don't they don't wanna have a situation where Mauler, who may not be

Top of everything else is subjected to questioning for hours on end. So let me ask you this. What's the point in this ostensibly, the point is that the house wants to ask him. Questions wants to get to the bottom of his report. It wants to clear up any ambiguities left by his strange press conference on a sofa, but no it. Isn't this really just pr this really about. I, the keeping this in the news is trying to create a narrative or maybe in some cool this building toward an impeachment drive, because the report is not short. I'm in the report is there, have been some arguments over the way in which the report and its findings have been characterized clearly

turning general bar has been criticized on that front. The service mullah mullahs, press conference- he he certainly gave impression, as you say, he set this. I think deeply illiberal standard of not exonerated. I think more of every four years around our politics and our law, but the report itself is fairly clear. It's been released on almost in its entirety. What's the point in this? Is it so we can slice up twelve second clips and put them on twitter and make people believe he said something he didn't work. I think that certainly part of it, but I think the Democrats are wrestling with is they have a fractured carcass? once different things and they try NOME and their antagonistic things in their they're trying to satisfy everyone. So you have about

I want to say a quarter to a third of the house. Democrats who would like to impeach trot And then there is probably a quarter which led by speakers Lucy who realise that politically? That's enough! That's just a terrible idea, I think from policy standpoint. She said these twenty twenty as a very winnable election for the Democrats on the White House front as well, the house front. I dont know that she really thinks that they can take over the Senate, because and I'll take the young, the map, Tita as well on that She understands that in order to hold the house, it's I'm going to be the the function of unity, Alexander ginger Ale, Cassio Cortez Wing of the party it

going to be the forty one Democrats who hold seats in districts that were won by tromp, so She's been trying to do is satisfy a base that badly its trump impeached. Election cycle presidential election cycle, where the base really punches above its weight, because That desire is really pushing the presidential candidates as well to call for trumps impeachment. Policy is trying to give them enough to say it is by them, while at the same in time, sparing these four we won Democrats from having to take difficult votes for them on things like you know, should trompe censured. Should he be impede? Should there be articles of impeachment should billboard held in contempt in connection with this. Investing

should an and so forth self. I think what we are seeing here is a function of the fact that can't really decide what they want, because what they want, don't run a very different things, and what you're trying to do in terms of of reliance on mauler. This always been about the fact that they hoped that mauler would come up with dial felony offences, but they also We understood that it's not necessary for him to do that. The two should away in order to impeach him. So what I meddler the place where Adler, wanted to get was more. Yours judgment, as the person who is both an authority

in the sense that he's a by widely respected career prosecutor, an investigator that they would like get him to come in and be at the point where he says. Yes, I did give you a report that as indicted ball obstruction offences against the president and it also like to have, even though, didn't find a an Chernobyl conspiracy to commit espionage against tromp. I did These many connections, between the Trump Camp and the Kremlin. Which are highly highly disturbing and I d find that there was collusion in the sand. The trunk campaign was looking to take help from the Kremlin and the Kremlin certainly did want trunk to win. I think that day, that's where he would like to get now. I don't think he's gonna get

that from mauler, although he may get something close to it. But the background for that is If you can get that from smaller in terms of the the impeachment case that helps the impeachment case, a lot because they don't again, they dont need to have felony offences It would certainly help there about there. Demand for more information. Along the lines of. Can we file articles impeachment Have the prosecutor come in and say why, You guys don't need felony offences, I'm giving you felony offences. So I think that helps I'm sustain the investigation. In that sense, and it helps the wing of the poor. Which I think now Adler

is, is effectively running. That would like to see Trump impeached and it helps their cause. In terms of validating the continuation of the investigator and the possibility of filing articles of the treaty down the road. There's gotta be a risk, because it's not only Democrats but get to question him. Republicans do too right the arab world and questions here and- and this also surely a risk in that it is difficult to imagine. Short of changing what he said in report, how much better that press conferences held could have gone for Democrats, yeah, I think that's right. I mean I, I think, what he I don't see how it can get much better for them. I, but I really thought that from the beginning I charlie- I just don't think he's going

come in and say that if it were now for the oil seed guidance. I would have indicted the president as far as he's been willing to go in his report is to say yeah I'd I'd have a lot of sympathy with people who think that this is incoherent, because I think it is too the most he's been willing to say is because of the oil seed guidance. We never even confronted the question whether there was adequate amount of evidence to bring charges and I think, network and shift would like to play Jim, the rest of the way to say was the well see guide. Instead, that stopped us from charging, and I just don't think he's going to get there now do theoretically imply because he did during the press

Friends get well, I think he'll kill imply as much as he did in the press conference, but that doesn't quite get them there and I think that be why they want to have the behind the scenes ORB club store session with Weissmann Who is reputed to be the? apparently there was division among mowers, team between faction that thought that there was enough evidence to charge and affection that didn't I again now we're going on press reports and leaks. So who knows how reliable This is by the wise. Men is ought to be in the camp that wanted to file an indictment against the president and the third. I think is that he may be willing to go further than Mahler is willing to go, and it is the reason why they would want to have him, or

but he representative of his point of view The team interviewed closed door session, because he made the hope would be from their from their point of view that he or that faction would give them more than mauler has given them in that regard. Up to this point,. I was switched over to another part of this saga, which is the Horowitz report which seems to be delayed. It was originally supposed to be released between late man midge. In MID June, has come and gone it's now July and they now moving into August. Why why it has so long? Well, what I heard Charlie when I was down in Washington a couple of weeks ago, was that The delay was caused by the fact that other witnesses came forward so that it wasn't There was-

necessarily more scope to our work. This investigation, but at least there were more sources of information about the relevant questions would come forward and that those people needed to be interview. I think it also may just be a simple case of of bar overestimating. How quickly Horowitz, be able to tie up the investigation. You know how were how ripe mall power, which is effort, was at that point, when I've now, and this is based on reporting, from Bob, I think it was Washington Examiner, but it was an interview of John Ratcliff, who is one of the Republicans on the intelligence committee who recently had a meeting with Horowitz was not willing to

Scots it may not. Even a found out very much about the substance of Horowitz is investigation, but did find out a little bit about the process and the scheduling. So what he is saying, is that Horowitz is basically finished. Stating in the sense of he's done with interviewing. Witnesses and chasing down leads, and the like, unless something new were to develop, which is is not something they anticipate So there are in the process of writing their final report and a complication. There is probably ten sent or more of the report involves classified information which means that before they can publicized, even if they do it with a classified, annex like they had in the year. Hillary Clinton, males investigation that the inspector general did some. I'm back. They still have to get

clearance from the different agencies that have, as they say, equity over the classified information. That's a ball in the report, so until they get the approvals for all that stuff and of making whatever public it is that Horowitz intends to make public that is a process that that is the line we war is well soap. What Radcliffe said was that he hoped that the report would be released at least to Congress, if not to the public by them time or by the time Congress breaks for its recess in August. I think that's about from remembering correctly that's about half way through August, but he said that there

get out these complications may push it into September, so will have to see and what are expecting where this is. Is this gonna beer inverse of their mother report very heavy toll package that the ten percent, that's classified, as will the juicy stuff in all of. What's in there plain about yeah You don't like. I doubt that you are the last report that that Horowitz did there was there was a classified couple cash to it as well, but it was a very lively report. Might my recollection was it? It was almost six hundred pages and I dont think you could get to the end, We think that we didn't know what really happened. I don't think anybody claim that and my own take for what it's worth on on Horowitz. His last report is, I thought the fact finding was excellent. I thought he did a really thorough. Job and it was very linear there. They didn't leave home.

Sidney trajectory of the story, I mean you got to the end of it. You really thought that you understood what happened. What I didn't think was good was Car, which is conclusions which I thought more mushy and you know the way its directors general, are our constitutional anomaly. Sort of the same reasons that Justice Scalia discussed in. Morrison VIII? Also in the case of an independent councils, you know their process, Fusion is really an executive function in our system and inspectors general are this kind of, I read that reports you now have to do. But turning general and have to the Congress so about the the prosecutor has you don't different constituencies to please, and I think that kind of stops

especially from cases that are charged with politics like like these investigations, are he's he's old tepid about planting use his feet in terms of the ultimate conclusions loud. What would be a better way setting it up? Why they could just? I think it should be an idiot two general in the Justice Department should report to the Justice Department and there should be congressional oversight, but I don't think they should report to Congress as well as have its own, and maybe we have two well have to change the understanding of what it would investigative powers. I mean in traditionally. We have always regarded investigation and prosecution as strictly executive functions and the hissed three which which I'm sure you know better than I know, but the history of regimes where you know that

legislative authority is at all and joined with executive ours, not a happy one, when one of the main desire of the framers- and I think it's really poured the genius of the constitution to to make sure that the same set of hands was not exercising both legislative and executive authority and I They put the recent joy that this doesn't work. As well in modern times as maybe its work in the past is that we ve forgotten how to have political accountability. It's not. That does not that this kind of a framework can work, but If you don't it, if you don't have real congressional oversight

and you're. You know those muscles that that are involved in impeaching people and actually holding the executive branch. Accountable are completely atrophied, which is pretty much What returned, I think for the last generation or so then you you had the eggs. It is pretty much convinced that they can get away with whatever. I think they can get away with with politically right, but I'm not tickets. Structural problem in the system? I think it's a problem with the with the Euro, with the way that the system is executed by the people that we elected right, but I just wonder this is a problem of nomenclature at one level, because if congresses is more impeachment happy and is exe.

Rising oversight. You're going to have some form of congressional investigate all right and it will just be in service of potential impeachment all legislative sensor whatever, rather than an eventual prosecution. But you could plausibly commerce go plausibly task. Somebody With looking into this issue yeah, I think they d Charlie, I think, historically, don't they done that I'm in the big investigations like Watergate and ran, try these congressional committees, they be their set up impeachment committees or set up special committees and what they have and in some of these investigations is retain council so that the yeah, the majority has. Council in the minority has council and they function almost like prosecutors and defend

lawyers. Now they don't have all of the law enforcement investigative powers that the Justice Department has. They can go to court search warrants. They, you know they dont have grand jury power and the like, but they shouldn't need to have that because they are not the function. I dont think would be to conduct criminal investigations. It would be the very different political function, deciding whether somebody is fit for office and whether there has been abuses of power, even if they fall short of criminal offences, a rich, and I discuss a couple of weeks ago when I I wrote a book about impeachment back in twenty fourteen, and what I was really struck by in doing the research, for it is that most of the things that guy does that are in the nature of abuse of power or not,

actually violations of the penal code to think about something? Like on masking, which is something that that came up during the young, the so called investigation of the investigators, that's under way, this idea of the names of people American too, who have not been you know, there's not enough evidence to investigate them for crimes, and they come up in an intelligence collection, because they ve been, incidentally, intercepted and where supposedly targeting foreign targets and are supposed to be protected their identities. To be concealed in intelligence reporting and that's pursuant not only to start Tori LAW, but also What are known as minimization instructions that are promulgated by the Visor court. Well, you know there are, there are,

Officials in the executive branch who have the authority need to unmask if they their judgment find that the fact that the entire origins, value of whatever has been collected is lost. Unless you can identify the names and identities of the of the people who come up, there's no real statute? If you have somebody who's, gonna abuse their power in terms of on masking there's, nothing that that would allow you to prosecute somebody who does that, yet it's a pretty profound abuse of power, and somebody who abuse stood on a wide scale- would not be fit to be exercising that our those of the kind of things? I think that Congress ought to be able to investigate by it without having to rely on Justice Department prosecutor, we ve become so litigious ass, a society that I think that someone infected our conception of the

Patient process owe it to talk, not only the impeachment process. I think that one of the things that dumb that makes me nuts about the whole Russia Gate scenario is that there is nothing I think that we know. As a result, the mowers investigation about Russia's interference in the election. That was an already known in January of twenty seventeen on the basis of the report that was put out by the intelligence agencies. But yet, if you hear, if you'd talk to people about this, and you hear the way that its covered- We now know the Russians did it because smaller file to indictment. In the meantime. You know these are people who the indictment ever be challenged in court, the Russian

is that he indicted will never be brought here for trial and the, diamonds, pretty much, merely reflect what was already disclosed in the intelligence report that had been done You know a year and a half before, but it's as if you don't. And come down from Mount Sinai until somebody nuts company makes allegations in a district court while say you end up with a way situation which we had with the Miller Report, which is that the moment that it came out, but there seems to be no collusion, we switch to a non legal standard, which is fine, but not when the proceed a year and a half has been marked by claims of lawbreaking and fantasies. That Donald Trump was gonna, be pulled out of the White House in handcuffs.

Does a disservice, really is a form of double jeopardy. Yet while I agree with this yet this this is an excellent point, because you know I am. I am the first to say that if we want to have are elected officials, we don't want the qualification for public Office in America to be that you can stay one step ahead of indictment. I think we should aspire to more than that. But if you I'm going to delegate oversight to federal prosecutors, then, though, is a criminal investigations and people like Trump, whether you like it or not, they have all of the rights that somebody under criminal investigation, whereas and if you want to, get them in a different context. If you want to say this is about a criminal and integration, this is about, is somebody for office or has somebody

committed in teachable offences. I'm fine with that then investigate it that way, but it but if you're gonna do criminal investigations as a proxy for doing that, the person you are investigating It's all the rights that you get the criminal investigation and where, where we had left him, this was. This is also a problem when it comes to separation of powers, because you- and I King Obama, for example, with darker and argument that that was unimpeachable offence, which I thought was reasonable, yet is met with oh no, it's legal under these terms are under this interpretation. We found a low professor who say that it is an that's argue but that's not really the point in the same way as if the president took the United States to war without congressional approval, the Supreme Court might say it's not just Jesse above and it doesn't mean Congress couldn't be angry enough to impeach amount

but we ve gone down this road now people want, I think, maybe the war crimes in the impeachment clause confuses people, but it is clear that the that. The understanding that I think the framers had of the impeachment clause at the time the constitution was adopted an end, the framers actually had the bottle of Edmund Burke impeachment of Hastings, which was a fairly contemporaneous example at that and that the constitution was adopted? So was, I think, much more? generally understood what high crimes and misdemeanours meant at the time the constitution was adopted, then you know flesh. Our two plus centuries, later we'll really only had, but

a very small data set of impeachment incidents and your your quite right every time. Something like this. Up. I mean I, I remember during Obama during Obama's term and during the darker. You men among other arguments, we were having including Benghazi, I think the chairman Republican, led Judiciary Committee suggested that they could not be. There was no, point. In talking about impeachment, there could not be an offence because there was nothing in dynamo. Exact you want me to be totally wrong interpretation of what the impeachment close as now to be fair to them, if you could be fair to people by trying to

understanding of their dishonesty. They thought it was politically damaging to be talking about impeaching Obama. They thought that that was just such a wild position. It would hurt them at the ballot box? So I think they were misrepresenting. It was that they so much misunderstood. What the standard was misrepresenting it because it was something is a political role they didn't want to go down, but I think it is exactly right that there is a lot this misunderstanding about what unimpeachable offences I move to have not unimpeachable offence, but nevertheless, potentially an offensive, hence the political order, which is this investigation into the origin of the investigation. Where are we with that Is this a witch hunt, or is it something to work? think it's a witch hunt, and I you know, I think that

if the shoe or on the other foot and a republic in administration had use, can or intelligence authorities to investigate, if not be democratic campaign least people who were attached to the democratic campaign, people, feel. Certainly, the media would feel much differently about this and there would be a demand that there be a this kind of an event negation. So I think that you know for the for the Justice Department to be looking into how it handled and how exercise can or intelligence powers and how government did. That is a perfectly appropriate thing for it to be doing whether riddle amount to anything. What unites us is as far as recently said in the last few weeks. When

we saw speculating about those he says again and you want to make any ball pronounced one central I've conducted a full investigation You know it may be that the people overstep their authorities, but they didn't have necessarily corrupt reasons for doing so, like, for example, if you if you- and I think this may actually Charlie end up being where they come out with reason just somebody thee heads of the agency's, whether it's the FBI, the CIA, etc. If they thought that the russian threat to the campaign and to the election system was found and it cause them to invoke said Pfizer surveillance authorities undisturbed

stances where they didn't really have enough evidence to trigger that, that's a much more forgivable error, then, if was just clearly and and and totally motivated by. Politics was as difficult errors and Andy because we we don't want to see the United States and into Banana Republic territory, Sir, when people see a an instance in which a sitting president is investigating a presidential candidate of the opposite party or for that matter, if a presidential, candidate or president is-

suggesting that his opponent or somebody on the other team should be investigated or prosecuted? We tend to think of that that sir that's difficult button, the implication always is, and they didn't do it right. I mean you have to have some system in place if the person is guilty, or at least if you, you truly think that they might be guilty in an under our system and the only people who could have looked into the Trump administration were in the Obama administration has where that power reside. So what what is the best practice within a culture, that is rightly squeamish about the idea of different political parties using executive power to investigate each other. Yet I think Charlie, the tea where this really broke down, because you couldn't. You are quite right. I I I think

you really believed that a presidential candidate, whether it was a lean position Party or not. I was in Cahoots with an advert very foreign power that the income administration. Would not only have the authority they'd have the duty to investigate that and the fact that they were the opposition party would be a political complication, but it wouldn't change what your duty was over this under the circumstances. So I think most people accept that's a reality. And where we argue is We have a norm and we should have a norm against an income administration using can intelligence authorities against the political office and in our norms, are like rebuttal presumptions there. There they are for normal times, but they they

apply well when you don't have normal times. When you have an extraordinary through so where we argue is did what's the trip. While I was there a threat that was extraordinary enough. That arm are no one should be cast aside and the investigation should go forward and other things that we have in place in order to make sure power doesn't get abused were over. And here and I think, that's what is- is most troubling, for example, to address the exactly thee the complications that your raising we have. This process called the gang of eight, where the executive branch, the the agencies, that do intelligence investigations or support. To report their activities to a committee of

senior members by partisan of Congress that maybe the leadership of both parties I'll chambers and chair and ranking member of the two intelligence committees. I think a lot of people We feel a lot better about what the F b I did hear if the FBI had not decided as as a threat call me. I think, astonishingly, put it in one of his congressional testimony sessions that it was day judge that the matter was too sensitive to raise with gang of aid. So they didn't disclose the fact that in the stretch run campaign and the stretch run of the election race they were doing this investigation to the point that they actually I mean think about what this means. They went to the fire, a cord and told the fire a court. We think that the trunk

campaign, maybe in a cyber espionage conspiracy with Russia, but they decided it was too sensitive to tell that to the gang of eight. I think that's the kind of thing, but gives people a lot, a pause about what happened here, because The whole point of having the gang of a process. So that you can raise these covert sensitive matters. You can have effective conversion. Lower side over the executive branch so that its not off on its own. In it's not worth doing, unilateral investigation that could be abuses, and here they and ran that who is Joseph Myths sued now he's an interesting character. Joseph Minnesota's, the maltese professor, who,

ended up having a meeting with George Papadopoulos. He actually upon learning that Papadopoulos, had been made a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign. Myths should appear of cosy up to half a dollar and it was he who, in a meeting toward the end of April. Twenty sixteen told Papadopoulos he understood the Russians, had what he called according to Papadopoulos, thousands of emails of Clinton, which Papadopoulos says that he understood to mean emails that were from MRS Clinton's personal computer, the home brew service system. That was widely believed at that time to have been hacked by adversary, foreign intelligence services and the reason

So it is important for importing that information is Papadopoulos a couple of weeks later, around in a in a wine bar in London and informs The australian diplomat, Alex, and downer that the rush in this information that would be damaging to Clinton and downer after two months later after the democratic net, nor committee emails get dumped July of twenty sixteen down suddenly says to himself. Oh Papadopoulos must have been talking the DMZ emails and he toodles or to the American Embassy in London and Elsa. That Papadopoulos told him that the year the Russians had

information which they were looking to damage cotton with an apple We must have been talking about these Dnc emails, and it was on the basis of that, but the FBI and its so called crossfire hurricane investigation. That is needed, The investigation of whether tromp was in Cahoots with the trunk campaign was in cahoots with it. The Kremlin and had for knowledge of the fact that these democratic emails an act and we're going to be published so it all goes back to Miss said, and you know it. Such an interesting character. First of all, it looks like his can actions to Russia on are not he's known to have dinner, since to russian academics, but there is no evidence that he actually has connections to russian intelligent What would have been in a position to know

whether Russia had thousands of it. Else. It was somehow we're late to work to Clinton a couple of interesting other things about him, Charlie number one. While he has allusive at best contacts to the russian government and a no no known contracts to russian intelligence. He does have pretty extensive contacts to british intelligence and some to american intelligence. You, Sir he's worked a number of institutions, academic institutions in in Europe, where to see I actually does those training and the british intelligence services training of their operatives and he's no to be connected to were to some people who are involved. The british intelligence, that doesn't mean

the british intelligence asset it. It merely means that the the connections that we know of two british intelligence that he I seem to be stronger than the once we know of which wich, if they existed, all our elusive to russian intelligence. The other thing I think very interesting about him is that Mauler Mars bars invent a wife say more. This would have been the FBI not more, but in NAM, in February of twenty seventeen, after they interviewed Papadopoulos and got this worry from him about myths. Telling him about the add the hell I the emails that were related to Clinton myths should happen. There have been in Washington and the FBI grey Jim and was able to interview him.

He denied Papadopoulos this version of events. He said that the conversation never have. Then certainly never happen. The way the Papadopoulos said in that didn't, have any knowledge at all of you know what information She might have and denied and he told Papadopoulos that the Russians had emails of content. That's interesting, because if one day, if we have one thing about dollars investigation, he certainly you know how to bring false statements charges. He brought false statements, cases against a number of people who were found to have misled investigators during the investigation. Yet there was never any charge brought against Smith said It's never been suggested by Mahler that miss

said was lying when he said that he didn't have such a conversation with doubtless and in Molly S report, that very little information conveyed about Miss said kind of a footnote Passing that acknowledges that the F b I spoke to him and again, there is no suggestion in the report whatsoever that may is lying when he says that he didn't have to recession with that, but doubtless which is really kind of the seed that generates this whole, collusion, narrative or at least to a big part of it, so without making any concrete predictions. I know you on privy to a lot of this information, but where do you think this is good? because they really does run the damage on the right between scepticism. That is anything here at all add to your arguments that this is it

real scandal and that the Mulder report was fluff. Well, I dont think you don't I be it to those who think that people in the FBI and the CIA. It's only a matter of time, so you know they all get in diet and charged with committed fraud on the court and abusing their powers? I think people should distant Thrall themselves. I don't think that is going to happen. What we can the most. We can hope for is to understand what happened and what the rationale was for conducting this investigate and my own view, having looked at it very hard for for a long time. Is that the Mastication is going to go back to the second half of twenty fifteen and it's going to involve a lot

strands of intelligence that were they did business d, the precipitating event of it. I think that's going to be strands of intelligence that were coming into the CIA from foreign intelligence services from both western and Eastern Europe, were concerned about Trump. I think politically particularly concerned about trumps rhetoric that we saw during the campaign that Windsor Anti NATO and non interventionist and so forth, and I think We are going to be what what initial triggered. The investigation the CIA will be found to have been a bigger player than FBI, which I think comes in much later, and I you think that will now Charlie? Why

The investigation I got triggered. I don't expect that I dont exe that anybody is going to say that laws were violated. Certainly to the extent of justifying any criminal prosecution, Now that I'm not I'm not talking here about if people lie, two investigator restoring their interviews. That's it that's a separate matter, but what What I'm talking about is will anyone will there be a concrete there? Was this big sweeping spirits see I doubt that that is going be found. I think the most at the government will come back and tell us is that repeated that people were overzealous in the face of what they perceived to be a russian threat to the election system and that they got out in front of

what their residents wise and they did things that couldn't be justified based on it. Information that they had light dispatching informants to shut up people who were in the trunk campaign of potentially trying to entrapped them into incriminating themselves and using on intelligence surveillance, act, surveillance against an american citizen, at least that we know of course, page on to circumvent, This is where they didn't have enough evidence to do that and didn't corroborate the information that the warrant was based on that is to the stuff that was enough Steel dossier and they warrant straight with the court about the the various reasons to be suspicious of of steals version of it

and some of the information it still brought to the court, not least the fact that he was. Associated with the opposition campaign. So I think you're gonna find problem. A number of abusive things were done and that people overstep. Their authorities, but I'd be very surprised if you heard above the government comes the bottom line, but whole thing was a house and it was entirely political and it was completely divorced from any real threat. I was hit one final topic Lester briefly, as with for quite a long conversation about this, that's took about anti fur and I think, within the context. Perhaps of course

from the left for certain organizations to be designated terrorist organisations. It is interesting now to see the right arguing that Antigua should be designated a domestic terrorist organization. Some short lots of business will now Alexander Abkhazia Cortez likes to make great hey out of the fact that if somebody comes into the United States so. I brought and commits an act of terrorism. Then we very quick to designate that person a terrorist and that accent active terrorism. But, for example, if somebody in Iowa and I've committed a crime that would another second sounds just be regarded as terrorism. We ducked- and I think, we now saying, after what happened, gem in Portland to Andean go without saying the right asking the same question: why?

is this organization roaming, the streets untouched, and why can't the federal government under the Trump Administration designated a domestic terrorist organization when that too many people look site? What, What was the answer? Andy? Well? First of all, we don't have a process legally for designating domestic organizations as terrorist organisations, I think Charlie. When that objection gets raised, the people who were right, in it are not aware of why we desert made foreign terrors? organizations. In the first point of why we have a legal basis to do that that we don't have in connection with the domestic terrorist organisations what what people want to understand is the government does not have to designate an organism organization for it to be one and for it to be had to be? One of the states have a number of states have terrorism laws

that apply the federal government. And have a domestic terrorism Why is that? Does it mean that you kid? Why doesn't it we're gonna have a domestic care. I think, because the laws that we we have laws that will address terrorist activity domestically you don't like bombing laws and seditious conspiracy, law and wreck tearing laws, and you know the desert a big array of laws that can do this, but what we don't. What we haven't wanted to to do, especially given the modern history I'm talking about Half century of abuse is of surveillance powers for political reasons, is Subject: american citizens to the potential of political spying disconnected from

any criminal activity and the problem with terrorism Kay as always, is that the the political dissent is bound up with the the forcible activity, the terrorists and when you dealing with it with foreign terrorists, were The organisations are international organizations that are enemies of the United States and the opera. Are not people generally making will the full full array of? U S constitutional protections. That's a completely different category. And domestic actors who are american citizens who are acting on the basis of political dissent and who cross the line into violence. The presumption in our system is that that is not a federal well that's more of us, stay problem

There were other federal crimes right I mean if it's bad enough there are. She save you if you love the Boston Marathon and there's a federal crime against that. But if you shoot twenty people, it's not generally a federal crime, because it's not illegal under federal law to murder. Someone ass right. I mean right like the question yet I think that you know racketeering and the the be low threshold for finding federal, conspiracies that actually have impact across state lines ends up, meaning that we federalized a lot of conduct, that was once purely stay conduct, but you speak but knew that still the evil given that you know you're right that, for example, if you have a loan actor who who acts within a state and kills twenty people, there's not many federal charges that can reach that

stay. You know unless there's some firearm offence that is trigger the level employees and held right right. But there has to be some damage. We'll Federal Nexus too that whereas The assumption, with respect to most domestic activity is that that be The crimes that are committed within the states or the internal matter of state law enforcement, and I think you don't wanna have a system where you can do with domestic groups. What you can do with foreign groups, which is you don't savell them, which will effectively mean spy on them? Even if they have and committed crimes, because you suspect that they may they may in turn intend harm, country your arm to specify groups with unethical questioners

Well, then, why should states? Have you said some states have terrorism laws right? Well, if they they're still based purely on their there. There, I'm sorry their criminal terrorist laws so they are, not state laws that say you can, avail someone, because you suspect that he's a terrorist you would still have to you- now- show probable caused that crimes being committed. But what I'm saying is that some states have have terrorism statutes where, if you commit offences we commonly think are connected to terrorist activity like bombing conspiracies to bomb if they are done for the purpose of trying

to put pressure on the government in order to change its policies that can be prosecuted as terrorist crime, but you still have to prove the elements of it New criminal ace, whereas we can with a foreign citizen we can survive in. Without that suspicion being connect to concrete action, correct like if, sir, if Al Qaeda, if you think that somebody is acting as an agent of Al Qaeda in the United States, even though you haven't connected that person to any particular terrorist activity, but you have reason to believe that he may be. Acting on Al Qaeda behalf after the United States, you can go to the fire, a court and get warrant. That will act that will allow you to monitor the person's activity, even if it can't be connected to any crimes. Make sense to me handy with. Thank you so much for doing this. Once again, I hope deceiving

you have really good time, watching the baseball until the ninth in it you our job tonight at my my son actual, is, is playing a game tonight. So I thought I'm gonna, actually young, hopefully not tear I hear from the met game. I can go, tear it out on absolutely yes, I will will regroup soon and see how it all went well. The great independence day, like you, have a trifle