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 can't get me the lies and spin and provide insight and fax, your 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 find it on Google play stature tuna in Itunes. We hope to see you soon.

Hello and welcome to the Mccarthy Report, a national view, podcast discussing the Miller report in a legal and judicial issues facing the Trump presidency and the american nation. The Mccarthy report features NASH, her views, legal Eagle, Andy Mccarthy. I am your temporary guest host Michael Brennan, dirty our usual host Rich Lowry,

is on assignment in EAST Asia. Not covert. I hope in any way, in any case, theory are. We are a little more than a week after the the Mueller testimony it in front of Congress. That was low energy. I think it if trump we're going to describe it and seem to produce low energy, but there is fall out from it Andy. We know before the sure, we're talking a little bit about a feature. The Miller report that I think is Zahm under discussed, and that is the substance of the Miller report when it came to the involvement of Russia in the twenty sixteen elect,

what what do you think is- is kind of not being brought out in the media stories in the fall out from last week. While might that's really add it's probably the most undercover story and it's really an explosive story that the media, Not only has its eyes and ears close to, but that smaller as it turns out really tiptoed into in connection with the hearing, and also, I think it turns out in connection with his report at his peril, and this goes back to something that I tried to raise when Mahler first began filing indictments against Russians, he filed in a total of two indictments against

separate groups of Russians, one comes under the heading. This was the first one of of what's known as the troll farm case. And that is the social media campaign that was alleged to be a Russian in Florence operation to undermine the twenty sixth, election and, more specifically, to throw the election to Trop. So basically, this comes to the public under the heading of Russia is true to meddle in our election and not just for the purposes of sowing Scored nor society which which some of us have argued, is the principal reason, but that Russia actually had the that is Putin regime actually had the intention of having trump when the election and doing what it could do to swing. The elect

in that way, and the second conspiracy that was alleged by more than indictment is what known as the hacking conspiracy, and that involves actual Russian regime intelligence agents and the allegation is that they were responsible for the hacking of the democratic email accounts in that The under that heading of democratic emails. We have both the dead sea emails. We learned didn't. I think it was July of. Twenty sixteen around the time of the democratic convention learn that the year that the the sea had been massively hack and there were thousands the thousands of those emails that were published. mostly through Wikileaks,

and then later in the campaign in early October, there was the leak of. I think it was about sixty thousand e from the account of John Podesta, who had been a high ranking. bill, Clinton, administration, official Brok, Obama Official- and I was the chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential- pain. So the allegation in the second indictment was that there had been this massive hacked by, russian regime and eight they put these emails out for the purpose of embarrassing and undermining Hillary Clinton campaign in the hope of benefiting Trump at the time. the first of these and diamonds and interact indeed in both of these indictments, came out I made a lot of a number of critiques about the foolishness of doing this.

that is to say doing it by indictment, treating this as if it were a criminal justice case. You know what the rush it, what the Mahler Investigation the Russians, I'm sorry, the more investigation and the Justice Department. the idea that they were putting out there, and this was explicit in the Justice Department Press statement was that Russia was engaged in information warfare against the United States, it puts me in mind. I guess, because I had done These terrorism prosecutions in the ninety nineties, when we had an enemy foreign enemy that was attacking the United States. military fashion and responded by filing indictments and subpoenas that you know it's not it's just not an approach.

Free, your response. If you really think that you're under attack by a foreign power, you, don't you dont, indict them, that's just not what a price! It's not a serious response. It's not what a great nation doesn't it's it's has done Rumsfeld famously said back in the day. Weaknesses provocative right, if you, if you suggested the enemy, that this is how you are going to work to respond when they attack you a warlike way than you inviting more of the same Just for that reason alone, I thought it was a foolish thing to do, but the other things. This is what really come home to roost now. The other thing is that this had the potential to be a major propaganda victory for Russia. and when I say Russia, then it's important to make this distinction, as will come to,

say Russia. I am not talking about Russia, the country or Russia. The people on speaking specifically about the Putin regime. And the reason for that is that there are a lot of them is that we know and we know when I say we know them. We we understand them to be true in a way, we can be confident about there's a lot of things that we know that can't necessarily be true beyond reasonable doubt in court. and the problem when you hall somebody into cord, especially, buddy, who is a foreign power who is who is taking a warlike posture toward you, and you decide that the field that you're going to fight the mine is a minimum. criminal court room? Then you are in viewing them with the presumption of innocence and you are taking on the burden to prove

things beyond reasonable doubt that you may not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a nutshell. I think the problem here is that model and everybody else assumed that Russia was simply going to sit back and do nothing about these indictments and Mahler figured. He had a freebie. These, as I said at the time, were less indictments than political statements. Smaller had a practical problem in his investigation, in that, if you're going to prove that the tromp campaign colluded with Russia. Implicit in that is that Russia did something to be colluded with, and therefore you have to be able to prove that Russia did it before you even get to whether you don't trump

alluded in it and in your heart you have to prove their intention in their intentions, not just have intelligence that they took actions. Its rivals, like em away that the whole mullah investigation was almost misbegotten because it was mixing It was taking the assertions of intelligence is almost findings of fact right and that's it. That's exactly right and also, if you're, going to look at it in the context of collusion, which is a proxy, I suppose the same conspiracy under circumstances whereby the way you can't prove conspiracy, but they say collusion, whether you call it collusion or conspiracy to go to the point. You just bade. That's a thought crime. So you know in a concern

Bessie case, there's always a lot of activity, but the crime and conspiracy is the meeting of the mines. The agreement between at least two people to do something that violates law so you're quite right, it's it's an issue not only of we think we know that these things happen from an intelligent standpoint, but also that they are of such a character that weaken it weaken the deuce beyond reasonable doubt what people were thinking when they did them road users. It seems a girl if someone's come up in mainstream aim, media articles or or or even progressives, who were analyzing this as Thea Investigation, was being done. They would say We know. Essentially they will you know a lot of concerted defenders of the president would say something like you know. Web Donald Trump is having

difficulty even colluding with himself and his campaign team on a kind of difficult campaign was no ways you know and, and everything is sort of out there on his sleeve there's, not nothing secret about him. It's hard to imagine him actually colluding with Russia in the in the waves alleged and the response. The mainstream media of Democrats or progressive analyse would be while you know where he goes out on stage me he encourages. Ah you know the Russians or something like that, but that is not. I dont think that meets any legal definition of conspiracy. If, even if you could prove that the Russians did this with one certain intent,

To help Donald Trump and Donald Trump somehow knew he benefited from this. That's merely the coincidence of interests, not a conspiracy itself, correct right, you would still have to show that they agree to do something that was a violation of the law. That's why? I think, one of the big critiques of Mars investigation all along and one of the things that a lot of us complained about was that when the Justice Department appoints a special council you're supposed to articulate the factual basis to believe that a crime has been

committed, because unless there is a crime, there's no reason to have a prosecutor. If you just doing something for intelligence purposes in the Justice Department, intelligence investigations don't get a prosecutor, because the purpose is to collect information in order for us to protect the country and try to war the intentions and the end- the potential actions of the foreign power. It's a prosecutor work Urania prosecutor. If there's a crime on the table that that you think you can investigate with upper prosecutable cases and bring to court. So in the context of conspiracy, you know it's a commonplace in every conspiracy, trial that when the judge instructs the jury at the end of the case, the jury is told, Mere association is not conspiracy and the fact that people know each other is not conspiracy in the fact that they

may agree with each other about a whole variety of things and speak to each other is not conspiracies. Very specifically, conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to violate. A federal criminal law, so unless you could show that Trump and and would the trunk campaign and agents of the Kremlin agreed to hack email accounts say, which is a which is a federal crime, The fact that it may be true- and I think this is a lot of reason to doubt this, but the fact that it may be true that potent wanted trumped win and the fact that Trop may have even suspected that put wanted him to win and been delighted about that and been happy to take the help, not as that

the unseemly, and it may be something that we all think is unbecoming other american presidential candidate, but that's a big difference from saying it's a felony offence and that's what the rap has been from the beginning. I know one thing you know you know in what way think some people's movement say well seems to be winding down the office is that the Miller Office has been kind of wrapped up in it as wrapped up its business. You know, are we? Are you just doing after play commentary, but I dont think we are for this reason that we discuss a little bit before we were according which is that he he brought these indictments and it wasn't just ended.

Those who are outside of the United States, but it he indicted businesses as well. Why is this some miser important? He hath. While you are your first point that they do not get out. That's exactly right. You don't get too like drop a bomb in the middle everything and everyone and then say- ok, I'm done now roll over. You know you have two people have to deal with the aftermath of all of this, and what I've been arguing from us for a long time is that the aftermath of this might be disastrous for the United States, even if it, even if you don't people who don't like Trump and want to see him removed from office. You know I got a little bit of a thrill while it was on going the rest of us have to live with with how this was gone about and the fall out for the country, and here I am afraid that the fall out of the kind,

He is- and I say this might have somebody who I believe that Russia did this guy. I I accept the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia was behind this. I thought Russia was a big problem for the United States before that microbes on November, or do we hours of the morning, I guess, on November knife, twenty sixteen suddenly decided that may be. They work your political foul after all and the problem, from this, and I I, was worried about this again because of my own experience in in terrorism witches. When you start to treat things that are not criminal justice issues as if they were criminal justice issues

you don't just get to say boy. That was a mistake. I guess we shouldn't have done that. That has consequences and we are now going to live with the consequences, and one of the consequences may be that this is a huge propaganda victory for smaller, and that brings us to what you just asked me about, which is d the year, the fact that, more in what I think will go down as one of the great tactical blunders in in the context of the strategic blunder Mahler decided not on to indict Russian and visuals, but also three russian companies, and here the problem with that mauler, I think be thought that he was playing with the house money in a sense on these payments, because everybody knows that Putin is never going to extradite any Russians to face trial in the United States. That was never ever going.

happen. So Mahler has this problem. In his case, he needs to be able to show that Russia actually interfered with the election, because if he can't show that then there's nothing for chapter colluding and the problem with that is the evidence of the regime's actually directing these activities is scant at best, it's better in connection with the hacking case, But the enormous problem that the government has in the hacking case is that unbelievably, unless you're cynical, in which case it is entirely believable, de the FBI and the Justice Department never took possession of the servers that were said to have been hacked. And instead relied on the forensic examination of a contractor of the Democrats

party which had a motive- a very powerful relative to to frame Russia for this. On that thing they did Frank, Russia, which argued about what their motivation was, at least in that part of the case you have. You have the if you believe that you have the forensic examination which connects this activity, the hacking activity to these two, these russian intelligence operatives de on the troll, one part of it to the propaganda part you have this russian this set of, Shell companies, which are financing an outfit there be all of the companies, are called Concord there. You know, Concord Management and a couple of other entities that are also known as Concord and their financing. The sounds outfit, that's known as the EU internet research agency and its through the office,

of this by our aid that the not the IRA. We know MIKE Jesus, it's a different, but the auspices of this russian entity. They are conducting these. These internet populations, in its all these goofy, as that they put up put out that you know Hilary arm wrestling with Jesus in Wallace other nonsense. I Hilary with horns and while the other stuff, which apparently some people think was a powerful influence on the year on on the views of the electorate, But the problem they have is that they have little to no evidence but they regime actually directed this activity. Now, for those of us who watch Russia and understand how Russia operates in how Putin basically runs the country like a autocratic, organised crime. Family

it's perfectly understandable that if this activity is being done did by an oligarch who has these corporate entities that this something that the regime is aware of and supports and may even be directing and from an intelligent standpoint, it's perfectly fine to know that, from a diplomatic standpoint, it's perfectly fine to conduct your activities on the understanding that that is true, but in a court room you have, to prove these things beyond reasonable doubt, and they don't have it. They don't have evidence, and the interesting thing is: if you look at the end, I meant what you earn. Is that after you don't they basically two years of investigation if you very carefully ports the indictment? Nowhere does say that the regime is behind these activities these. As far as the indictment is concerned, when you, when you get down to brass

attacks these are just russian people and russian entities that are carrying out these activities, is no allegation in the indictment that their being directed by the Kremlin and the way that Mahler tries to paper over that problem is, he refers to them as Russia and the Russians, but he's in a very cute way doesn't specify or doesn't distinguish whether he's talking about Russia, the country, your Russia, the population, verses, Russia, the regime and you know the way the media talks about this new way. The Justice Department, talks about it. The non wink way that this has been presented to the american people is that this is Russia, meaning its Putin and in time what they are actually alleging in the indictment is business. There's no connection. The brain surface

so here here's the problem, they would have gotten away with that. More than likely, because again that you know they put this indictment out, nobody was going to ever be dried on it. They could say whatever the hell they wanted to say about a right, but what happened was he decides and in addition to charging a bunch of people who, of course, Putin will never allow to come here. He charges three businesses that three of these, entities that are under the russian oligarch guy who's who's running this thing and funny thing? Is you know if you were an american company? You do not want to be in the Justice Department Crosshairs, because there's a lot of terrible things they can do to you, including put you out of business and put all your employees out of business and fine. You have in all that stuff, but if you're, a shell, russian company in Russia you'd who she is ethically doing potent better under under

the name there's not a whole lot that the American Justice Department has on you in the way of average rate and unlike a russian person who comes here, you can't throw up a shell company in jail. You know resign. Lawyers can come here cracking So they hire a couple alone, those who were very clever lawyers from Virginia and they marched these lawyers march into work and they say we're here. We're Concord, we're ready he'll be tried to give us the discovery, we're ready to we're ready to get it on. An mullahs reaction, of course, is to go home and a humming a humming because they never expected to try this case so what they initially did. Preposterously was. They argue to the court that they were ready to go forward because the defendant hadn't been properly served,

and I felt so service a process is just a means by which you get the person what right does no one ever when they show our seven year when they're sitting at the table. Next to you, you know what to do and what the judge essentially said to them. Well is well they're here. If you want to stand on ceremony, he can go hand them. The indictment of that makes it he'll better, but you know they're here then we need to put a truck they're ready to participate in these proceedings. So what what Mahler had has done over the months is essentially. Try to delay the proceedings. So first he try to pretend that they hadn't really shown up when they were sitting in the courtroom with them, and then he said that we couldn't turn Oliver the discovery to them.

because Russia is still committing the crime which would have been like when I was a prosecutor. If I indicted you dont up a crew of the Gambino family, I would then tell the judge I can't give them the discovery in this criminal case that they could go to Reverend, because the Gambino family is still up and running in there still doing bad stuff. Uniting probably would not have had my law licence for very long so that didn't work either so they had to start giving them the discovery, and I think that, given the discuss under this really very questionable protective order. Purportedly does not allow the corporate and to share any of the discovery with anybody else in Russia, including the guy who owns the corporate entity, because these have scored defended in the case, so

you don't you can see at every stage, might that this is like not something that was never intended to be an actual criminal case right, but I mean it I mean now, it is eminently think the I mean my learn. Something has been rebuked by a district court judge in the district judge. Friedrich has put out. You know said that they are violated rules. Yes, you know by making an authorizing the release of public statements that linked the defendants, alleged activities to the russian government and provide an opinion about the dependence guilt, any evidence against them without end You know that this is. This is the big thing that, when they came in to fight the case and it became clear that they were, they were gonna mitigate the case. Of course. The big thing that they demanded was hey, judge the Justice Department

The prosecutors here are running around telling everybody. This is the russian regime. Did this and we demand because they're out there saying this and that's the upshot of their indictment, at least what they're trying to tell people is the upshot their indictment. We demand all the evidence that ties the activities of these people to the russian regime, and you: don't dollars guys hand an odd for a long time. They said well, we don't have to turn out over and finally, the judge said: what's your evidence that the regime is behind, it and they said well, you know, judge, and it turns out they dont have evidence, or at least they dont have evidence that they can prove in port. which is frequently again it's frequently the case that if you know something because of intelligence sources and What did reveal that you would have to you don't give up? Not only

Vital intelligence, but your sources and methods for obtaining it, that's the kind of stuff you don't disclose in court and its use We think that a good reason why you wouldn't bring the case in the first place if you were worried that by bringing the case the due process rules would require you to reveal things that you wouldn't reveal, which is why, of course, you shouldn't play diplomacy and courtroom. Could you can't really kids oh, what the judge is going to do in the way of directing you did to surrender information. So they had to come out and the end admit that they don't have evidence that the ties this to Russia and there is a local rule in the District of Columbia Court which prevents prosecutors either from saying things that are not in the indictment

the indictment is public record. So you can you can talk about the indictment, but you can't talk about things that are in the indictment, and you're not allowed to say things that indicate that the defendant is guilty, because that undermines is his fair trial rights or or its fair trial rights in this instance, so they got it bait, but what the court has found, as you just described, is that the judge this department, an attorney general bar, because they both remarked on this case Mahler, not only in the year in the courtroom proceedings, but also in his report and now in his public testimony he's remarked on is an attorney general bar also remarked on the case in the public statements that he made explaining the Mulder report at the time that he made it public those statements that have been made. The court has found

are in violation of the rule. That says that you can't say anything about the case: it's not in the indictment and their particularly a problem that the court has refused to this point to find anybody and content, because they don't think that's what they're saying as this was not a wilson, violation of the rule, but its problematic for them, because they not only saying things that are outside the indictment. They're saying things that, according to what they're wrong admissions, are appear not to be true, namely that you know this is a russian regime scheme. So that's the that's the latest problem and I think the problem is exacerbated because. The court, made its finding that they were in violation of the local rule, but but that they would not be held in Camp before Mauler gave his testimony

And then, when mother came his testimony last week, he pretty much repeated what he had been saying: all along that they had been complaining about and that the court you know cited Mahler for violating the local rule on so that may open up the whole can of worms again about contempt, but for our purposes. I think you know, however, that all works out he's kind of beside the point, for I would think to the american people. The major point here is that quietly this litigation in the District of Columbia Squires taken make it under the circumstances, be justice. Department has taken the position that they are not alleging that Russia was behind the troll farm operation, that is to say Russia, the government, the entity, the bulletin regime,

I think, big, quite surprising, to most people, given the rhetoric we ve heard for the last three years. Is there any way that this you know that the Concord management or whatever means do anyway? This can go away that isn't embarrassing either to the the people involved in the Miller, investigation or the? U S, government and it seems like the options are dropping it, which is embarrassing in a miser, basically saying that part of the investigation in there was was so untrue that you have to take back you're, you're criminal charges, or you know, with vindication for and cord management in American Court pre eminent items like There's some we're just doesn't seem like. There is a smooth way out of this. Yet the only

things I can think of, and no one would be if they have classified information that would help them prove that there is a link between what Concord was up to and the regime. They have to consider very carefully whether that something they can just take as a fine trying to prove it courts so that they can make the case that what is at issue is the problem of intelligence assessments. Right yeah, my sent of law yeah. Otherwise, right. Why why wouldn T have done it in their smart lawyer, they know they have this problem. So you would think that if that was an option that was available to them, we'd heard about it by now right there to put it in the indictment that you know they have used it in court when they were being accused of contempt and when you know the defense defendants basically poking fun at them, for not having a connection to Russia.

when I was a prosecutor, one you got poked fun at the way you can usually respond to. That is. If you had evidence, you would stick it where the sun don't giant. So I have to think that if they had the kind if they had the leeway to do that they would. They would do that since they apparently don't other. Then I really I don't see any graceful way out of this, which is what happens when you do something you shouldn't do in the first place. Right I mean there's, no, you can't that's not a bell that can be on wrong. I think the best hope for them is probably that they could dismiss the case saying that we rely on. You know the intelligence agencies report January of twenty seventeen which which pins the blame for this all on Russia, but as its explained in that report,

we often intelligence community knows things that can't be proved in court, because the two there to send what they rely on information, that if we compromise that it would be detrimental to the national security, true, but I just take. The problem is even if that, even if that's true, and even if they do, it will be a lot of people who say this. Whole thing was trumped up in the first place and Putin is gonna, take the victory lap of all time and is quite a thing to leave. Leave over to have left over at the end of this is potential victory for the guy you're trying to nail? So we have a sponsor today and it's our friends over at dividend. Cafe

we have so many options for engaging political pod casts even just within the National Review circle of high quality podcast content. But where does one go if they want concise, practical hard, hitting investment commentary and podcast world? Look no further than the dividend cafe. The deepening cafe, podcast is brought to you by David Bondsman, founder and chief. assessment officer of the bonds in group and friend of National Review and the editors podcast. The dividend cafe represents tiredly unique approach to assessing the economy, the FED, the stock market and your pocketbook. an effort is not another wing not attempt to pitchy gold. It does not carry pollyanna view of the market that calls for investors keeping their heads in the clouds. Rather, it addresses issues in a timely manner.

in a timely manner that matters to you and does so with a commitment to first principles rooted in an ideology of free enterprise and sound money, check out Dividend CAFE: dot com for a look at one of the most since thoughtful critically clean investment commentaries out there and sign up for the dividend: CAFE podcast for ongoing analysis of the trade war, the election, the FED and so much more. That's dividend cafe for no nonsense: economic commentary from the bonds and group, your antidote to the thoughtlessness and laziness of today's financial adviser population. Listen, I think we should move on to the

another development. In the past week. I noticed in the New York Times when the calmness there, a friend of mine, but a progressive Michel Goldberg, basically said day. Impeachment proceedings in the house have begun, and why? Because the Judiciary Committee has filed a suit jerry, Jerry now Adler has done so. I would note the jury Natalie, like some other older urban district Democrats, is probably facing some intent Primary pressure along the lines that Alexandria causing Cortez and repeated Levin, others brought to bear in the last election cycle, but he while the suit what is going on had have have in you know, there's nothing in the constitution that says that the year that the house has to move as an entire body before the Judiciary Committee

as you know, I never says that at the end of this they are going to make a recommendation about MP in about the proceedings. So so what's going on has impeachment has impeachment. We yeah. We know one told us what the metal, what if they threw an impeachment. Nobody came, I basically

despite this goes along the lines of something that has probably been the favourite the topic that rich and I have had for the last four or five weeks, which is the the tough row to how that speaker, policy and senior Democrats have in that they have a base that badly wants Trump impeached, regardless of whether he can be removed. They want they want impeachment and they figure the house. They have. The numbers, Democrats can do it or revised the will to push ahead and do it. Ah, and against that backdrop, which it that's a very powerful moving force. I think, particularly in an election cycle, and we saw it again

in the debates this week, where you know all of it, you couldn't beyond that stage on either night and not have the position that the Trump deserves to be patient should be impeach rise. So there were. There was some moderates who are pushing back saying correctly. I think that you know if you, if you don't, have the votes to impeach President. I made this argument myself in it in a book a few years back If you, if you don't, have the votes to impeach the president and your whole, often impeach him you're, essentially encouraging the bad behaviour, because eventually he'll be able to say blown frame it as a year as an exaggeration right, so that I think there are a number of cool or heads were saying. It doesn't make any sense to push ahead on this one, what when he can't be removed anyway, but what? What the big problem the Democrats have

is politically, they see this? They see. Twenty. Twenty is a potential big winner for them, in that they could both defeat Trump and maintain control. House and Nancy Policy. I think recognizes that those two objectives, are best served, by having impeachment essentially go away so that you don't put the forty one also Democrats were in Trump friendly districts in the position of, having to vote on things like. Should we have an impeachment inquiry? Should we all can impeachment hearings and ultimately, should we file articles of impeachment They are trying to do. This needle where they, to satisfy the the progressive base that their hearts. Right, place and they're doing what they can get tromp removed, and at the same

I'm trying to spare the the block of Democrats work, he did their maintaining their majority, try to spare them the difficult votes, all entails. So what Jerry Meddler, I think, is dry to do here is basically by ipso rejected the rejects it. say that were now in impeachment hearings without anybody in in the house or even on his own committee. Having voted to have impeachment proceedings, been interesting watching them. Let you know that on one side of their mouth, depending on who they're talking to they always say you know, look we haven't. We have gone down treatment, yet we you have not done we're looking at that, but we haven't gone down that road. I we're not going to do that too, were absolutely sure that the budget, so that its a path that the It is clear and we want to go down, and then on the other side of their mouths are saying. Oh yes,

haven't impeachment genoa will bring in witnesses, were looking at impeachment and trying to be called about whether it is actually going on in that. So with that as background nebular continues to pursue, the name issue of whether the Justice Department has withheld old grand jury material. That was that is relevant, two and described in Malta Report, and this is under circumstances? Where His report was about ninety eight or sell percent disclosed to the Congress. where it is illegal, under federal law for the Justice Department to turn over a grand jury material to Congress, because there is no provision in the governing rule, which is rule sixty of the federal was a criminal

procedure. There is no provision in there to disclose the information to Congress. It was just in May in despair spring that the Dc Circuit, which governs the Dc District court, where all the action it is taking place relevant to abolish investigation in Congress is investing, isn't. It was just in May that the Dc Circuit said. basically, that rule sixty means what it says and that the district, a district court judge does not have schedule supervisory authority over the grand jury which allows the judge to order the disclosure, and Jerry Material in the interest of justice, in other words, if Congress not lay out an exemption to grand jury secrecy battle that enables the justice to disclose grand jury information, a judge has

no power to order the the Justice Department to discuss and there is nothing in six ii that require, there or allows the prosecutors to turn over grand jury material to Congress and the other problem with this might not that anybody much cares about the constitution anymore, but you know, rule sixty is statutory, which means Congress can change the law so Jack. for example, for example, could propose a one line, amendment to rule sixty that simply says in special council investigations. Congress is entitled to

grand jury materials, and then that would be the end of the problem they they could voted in the house. It would be very hard, I think, for Mcconnell to block that, because it would look too much like they were protecting trumpet. It would be hard for Trop not too to sign off on it. So if, if Mahler not more, I'm sorry if Nadler were to bring this case under in front of any good judge. The first question the judges gonna tell him, is Congress and what have you done to change the law? Why is the article one branch come into the article three branch to ask us to rewrite the law when it's your guy's job, to write the laws. So what have? What have you done? And I think would you know at this point Jerry's going to say: well, we haven't done anything. We want

to do it. This has been the mood. I have criticised the Democrats for an increase in the House Democrats for have for wanting it both ways right that that their desire seems to be like if they could be the passive instrument of impeachment. Somehow right, if somehow, Robert Moas report or a judge or someone else, could, in a sense order them to impeach the president, they would be happy to do it and satisfy their base, but to actually take the decision themselves or to try to lead public opinion their slow to do it, and that's why me currently, though, the number of Democrats in the house that I want impeachment proceedings is still growing, even though it's not

anywhere near where it has to be seen in a four four politically viable set of proceedings, and you know, of course, that good about gone recess. Yes, we have a crisis of the regime. We have somebody who is a tool of the Kremlin who obstructs justice and must be removed from us, and we're gonna get to that right after we get tax from vacated by ok. Let me blooming play devils Advocate or for first like about a year. That is absurd and its face, but as a whole nickel matter. You know I do think there are Democrats who think the house. Could you

who's. In a sense, the theatre of hearings in the fall to just continued dirty up trump ahead of election and then stared. Their theory is like well, of course, we know, there's really know shot of conviction and removal in the Senate in the current arrangement of things. But let's use these tools of of pot. That Congress has let's force people to come in and testify. Let's focus the attention of the media in the nation into the house, just have people talking about Trump in a way that is embarrassing to him. You know is so if there's no one. Ah, a even for Democrats are faced with this.

Political problem of you know, PLO seen, others think impeachment might be a political loser if they really pursued it with vigour. Is there a case that then you know there? There's awaited to do it half way and to do to start the proceedings focus people's attention and just use it as a as a kind of carnival of trumps supposed misdeeds, meaner, yeah. I think that that then the purpose of it all along- and you know I love me- qualify what I've said: I have said this a number ties, but I put it, but it's important to to underscore it. I am not saying that the democratic wouldn't impeach trump if they thought that the

For example, if Molly had found that there was a collusion conspiracy between trumpet Russian and they actually had strong evidence of that right, I think, they'd not only impeach him. I think all of us would agree that he should impeached eyes. I know why would run. That's that's a enormous serve. The issue is really huge hurdle to get all rather right, and the thing is, I dont think they ever expected to find that and it it seems pretty clear to be particularly if you look at these russian indictments that we were talking about before they eat the he just never had the evidence of that. So I dont think that they were ever that that implies. it was some. Even out was a desire. I don't take. It was ever you know, a serious goal and they,

you know, even if you believe in the obstruction case, are. They were not going to remove the president from office over what I think is equivocal obstruction, evidence in connection with an investigation that was never actually impeded into a climbed. It didn't happen, I mean you know you'd, you could say a lot of bad things about drop, regarding some of this behaviour, but he wasn't- the country doesn't want em removed from power over that. So I've always thought that the purpose of this. was not actually to impeach, even though they would have impeached if they. If the opportunity came by, came along the- real purpose of this always has been to damage trump politically By incrementally over time, so that by the time we get to the start of the stretch run in, say, you know late summer early autumn, but next year he's unelectable

that's what the objective has always been, and that's why I think you're exactly right when they come back there gonna, be a lot a song and dance about. You know the tax returns frame and they're gonna try bring dawn, began in and they gonna talk about like the different. Do you know the five too seven different incidents of obstruction that Mauler lay out in the report without saying that they qualify as obstruction offences and they're going to keep pounding us? The thing is anything like this is this is much more of a political calculation and illegal one. You have

decided, a certain point. It have we reached diminishing returns. I think they ve already left diminishing returns. That's that's the point I was gonna come to and I think maybe we should wish we can wrap up on which again is that I think after the way, that is a huge segment of Democrat leaning. Voters made Robert Mahler into this hero who was going to somehow reverse or erase the stain of the trunk presidency through this investigation that was done. The report comes out and the report itself doesn't move,

Public opinion enough to really make impeachment proceedings viable. Now you had mauler in front of Congress in session, and I think that was even more of a dud right. It was a temp down. It didn't less than nothing to move public opinion. It gave the impression that this whole exercise was p. Ring out into nothing. I am not sure that there is a good case that hearings in September, with people of lesser stature, lesser public profile than mauler, are going to move the needle either. However, I do think that the Democrats are just caught in this pin, sir, where nothing they're doing with his investigation or its results.

for the people invited or a that are described in it is moving the needle, but there's a substantial portion of the democratic base that thinks. If the house just shows more leadership, they're going to move the needle and eyed and because guys like nad lower, may be vulnerable to you know, challengers in the Democratic Party, I think they're. Just I think they're gonna continue to drift. Don't you know towards either starring proceedings or or trying to hold more hearings or more investigations, but I'm not sure

were that that courses endearing them to a general electorate that they'll face and twenty twenty as well, so that I think the political calculations is actually rather difficult and complex for these Democratic House members yeah thinking in NAM. In boxing terms, what were witnessing now is kind of a standing eight count. Their therein kind of of a holding pattern and I think they ve made the kind of noise that that they needed to not and if they could with Mars. Would I would, I think, was a disastrous appearance by Mahler before the committee. I dont think that that was the last thing that they wanted ringing in people's ears.

as they went off on their holiday, so I think you know what what What matters is trying to do here is basically, as he's at the door, save a little face and say impeachment is still alive and well and when we get back we're gonna be all over and were already in impeachment hearings. We take this all very seriously and forget about what Mauler look like in his testimony in. think about what's in Malta's report, which is very damaging and unsavory and so on and so forth, and then I thought Their calculation is by the time they get back in September. The twenty twenty election is really on and how much people gonna be interested in whether impeachment moves along. is. It will be something that they can gauge, based on how the camp

seems to be going and what people seem to be interested in the problem. I have read the problem they have and I think the reason this is going to continue to be a very hard to measure. Issue for them is, I think the adult leadership in the party in Congress realizes that this is a bad idea and it's the kind of thing that could blow the election for them to pursue this in the face of a of a country that, even if they don't like Trump There is not enough Yoda impeach and they just want to move on from impeachment verses going out on. What's going on on the hustings and in the debate halls, where the the base of the party is where the energy is and where the money is and that naturally pulls the candidates were running for president in the direction of impeachment, even if it's not be even if it's not

resonating with the country resonates with the with the base and an you worry that if you, if you policy, I think what you really worry about is if the momentum of the campaign demands that everybody on board with impeaching tromp. That makes it very hard to two resistance, and yet in the movie However, it is if they know it's not a good idea, and even if you know, and even if, which is a very real possibility, the election in twenty twenty returns trumped office and a democratic majority data right, that's extremely worried that falls well within the range or possibility and yet and then it is a potentially saddles them righted. Incense there, there defeated nominee Willem attention almost accidentally saddled the democratic majority with with the chalice that they won't want to drink.

so anyway, is this. This is all to save. This is nowhere near over right, which, which means we get to keep the carpet the podcast yo you to keep going finding out whether the district, in D C is going to humility Mueller our whether mothers decision will human the United States before Putin and other Tino, cheering nobblers attempt to thread the needle between. the desires of party activists in his district and party leadership in Nancy Pelosi, whether he can continue to do this through through the fall, I'm not I'm not sure that he can't it's gonna it. It's gonna be interesting. We may see my own sense and will close here. My own sense is that time,

The reluctance of democratic leadership to go all out on impeachment will mean that several leadership- people in senior Democrats in Congress will lose primary challenges to figures in the mould of Alexander Cassio Cortez agenda, and the will change our up our politics because of it. So thank you Andy! So much. It's been a pleasure. I think we re let alone. But it's been a pleasure and a thrill to sit in the chair for the second time as guest host. I think ritual been back next week or expect he will. Thank you so much again for everything you do now. Might thank you so much and congratulations on your book, which is really a triumph. I finally have gotten a chance to dip into your book came out at the time that I was finishing mine and going through all the

Then they should gas attended to that. But I bet it's really triumphant had been a great success for you. So congratulating listened. Anyone can order that fine booksellers, it's called my their left me, Ireland, and in while you doing it search any Mccarthy's name in pre order, his book of its available for pre order. Yet the at sure is our right will. Thank you so much and Wolf we'll talk soon, maybe not in the pot. Jasper cease unity thanks my