There's a war of ideas being fought for the soul of Amerika. The new film no safe spaces takes you to the heart of the battle stirring, Adam Corolla, Dennis Prager, no say spaces is now in theatres. Adamant Dennis take you on a wild ride to show the effects of political correctness attentively politics in silencing debate here from leading vote on the right and the left about. Why free speech is important? How is being threatened and what we can do to fight back no say spaces shows you how to fight back against the forces that are silence you on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. If you ve heard stories about how you can't say certain things because words might offend somebody This film is, for you know, say: spaces has a ninety nine percent audience approval rating on rotten tomatoes and variety calls it smart, vital, urgent, provocative and witty high wouldn't make this film and Hollywood doesn't want you to see this.

so let those California lives know why you won't be silenced and see this important film. In theatres. We can send a message to Hollywood and mainstream liberals by supporting films like no say spaces in theatres, not to mention it funny entertaining and informative, no say spaces is rated P D. Thirteen and is now in theatres, go to no safe spaces, dot com for ticket information and theatre locations, no safe spaces. current. Please check it out welcome,

The Mccarthy report populist right, which were discussed with Andy Mccarthy, the latest on impeachment and other legal and national security issues. This week the idea report and the articles of impeachment, if you're listening to this podcast on NASH Review, Dotcom, were delighted to have you better be easier if you better for us, if you made as part of your feed at any the streaming serves, is out there from Spotify TAT. I tunes and please give this podcast an Anti Mccarthy the glowing five star reviews they deserve on Itunes and now without further, Do. I welcome to this very podcast through the miracle of the contracts. Fields have none other than any party. Rachel Aria Good, Andy Harry you, it's a historic day right. Yes, it's been made

I'm just I'm? I just have to say I mean you ve. You brought this up. I think the last time we were talking on the pod cast, but when we started the pod cas, we thought we would building toward the mother impeachment knee, I now operates just its remark at and guess what it may not be. The last impeachment now, there's nothing a sunny the editors two weeks ago, we are predicted whether or not trouble. If reelected we're getting peach twice and dead consensus was yes, he will judge or all though I think, if I, if I remember em DE said, why just twice a baby yeah? He kind of persuaded me so these put aside just fur, companies, because everyone else's

everybody else neck, like yeah, there's some on CNN. Who is treating an outrage that I think it was yesterday or the day before an orange together. But there are some another benchmark had been passed. I guess the articles have been introduced and none of the network news lead with. It was just a sign that to me that this kind of work- this is something that's going on this track. That is determined by the dynamics, this largely in the House of Representatives and the democratic carcass there, rather than in a broader sentiment in the country, and that the nation is not being convulsed. Vitus yeah, but you know rich, you put you by raising the issue hit exactly what the problem is witches. If someone on CNN was bent out of shape,

over that, why shouldn't we be bent out of shape or the or let's say I be bent out of shape over the fact that when they had the Pfizer abuse hearing a couple of days ago, CNN didn't carry Lindsey Grams opening statement, so you know, maybe our politics is just a reflection of. What's going on in the great out there. You know you sell it. Lets died into that the hygiene rules,

so let us take three three big take ways, one that the investigation was properly predicated too, that there wasn't any political bias and opening it and three the Pfizer process was a trade rack. So let us go to that the first two first, because this is obviously what the other side's waving around an amusing to say. You trump everything tromp was saying about. This was ridiculous and everything that credits were saying was was ridiculous. What what should we conclude from from the? aye, aye jeez, take that was probably predicated with without political bias and is open it well. I think when you read the report rather than the

said you were suffered in the two week, run up to the report to control what everybody would think of the report. The question that arises is whether Horowitz my car, what's the Justice Department in the general should even have we it in on the matter of predication, because what you look at it. What he says is so almost meaningless and- and I don't mean it that is a rapid at Horowitz. What what he's basically saying is that the FBI's guidelines or illusory in terms of the quantum of suspicion, that's necessary before you can trigger either a preliminary investigation or what they call a full blown were full investigation. So you know if they

If what he saying, then? I think this is what he sang in the end you read. The report is that there their written regulations are so low that they the threshold for starting an investigation. is such a small or such a low bar? That almost for a preliminary investigation, it seems like a hunch, will do for a full field, were full full investigation. little bit more is required, but it's just articulates all suspicion and article does not mean convincing. It just means it's something that you can coherently describe it. If that's what he saying and it is, I think, then, the fact that the investigation was properly predicated in the sense that they are regulations did not

Prohibited, doesn't really tell us much. You tells us virtually nothing, because the issue always with something like this is whether They should have done it, not whether they were permitted. To do what I mean know whether they permit with their permitted to do. It is obviously not completely unimportant, and there are some kinds, there are some triggers for investigations that are prohibited. You know you can't start an investigation based on. invidious discrimination, you can start an investigation solely on the basis of constitutionally protected activity, but rich. Everybody knows that those are big. No knows what most people I think believed is that the FBI has some regulations, that require a serious degree of suspicion that

men's or with the kind of investigation, with the importance of the investigation that they're going to do horror, which explains, is that that basically, a misimpression the way the system works is the regular nations have very little in the way of a a threshold requirement of suspicion and what they rely on is that the adult supervision the FBI, will make sure that the agents are investigating the things they ought to be investigating, rather than a nonsense, and the other thing Horowitz says is even now. There are certain investigations, for example, a racketeering investigation that you have to get all kinds of sign off from the Justice Department before you before you investigate those with respect to investigate

given that could intrude on domestic politics, including a political campaign there is no requirement of Justice Department sign So they are relying entirely on FBI supervisors to to make the judgment call whether to investigate that or not- and you know I guess, if you'd. If you couple the low level of suspicion required to trigger an indictment with the other thing that Horowitz tells us about his own mission, which is that he's only here two way in on right and wrong, that is what's permissible or not permissible under their regulations and his job as he sees it, is not to second guess. They're discretionary judgment calls about whether to open an investigation and what tactics to use.

And it seems to me that his predication finding is that has very little if any value, because always telling us is, you know, they're there regulations are very low in terms of requirements, and I'm not here to second guess anyone as long as the thing is legitimately open, which, by the way, doesn't require much so united. It just seems to me that the Lee Up to this, which is media reporting in the mainly anti tromp media, which was very supportive of the Trump Russia Investigation, based on leaks from people whose conduct was being scrutinised because they were the only ones who were permitted to read the report before it went out

so naturally, what you got the two week run up to the report is a lot of stuff. That said, all the investigation was fine, it was properly predicated and they found that there was a sound factual basis for opening the investigation. Will that's a dramatic overstatement of what Horowitz actually says yeah, so just stick with dedication and just that the at the deeper policy. Questions, though, is that the correct the standard the FBI has. Is that the correct standard, because if you had any more a higher standard, you're there to jump through anymore loop sea be creating a problem on the other side, not correctly, They should yet I mean basically, it's the yeah, it's something that I order

I fully agree with what you said: personnel is policy right that you what you want to do is you want to give them the widest possible birth to investigate with the idea that you will get good quality people as supervisors, and they will make sure that they investigate only the things they supposed to investigate. You dont hamstring them with regulations and enrich just a bit to be fair to them. On this you know, I think, about, for example, the wall regulations in the nineteen nineteen which we we ve talked about here, which was this the set of guidelines. The Justice Department put in that made it hard for the intelligent side of the house to communicate with the criminal investigative silence. compare notes and get a threat mosaic and the like, when you read those regulations.

They were written in a way that was so ambiguous that the Justice Department, people if something went bone the Justice Department, people would would be able to say all, of course, the F B. I could have shared information here. And, in the meantime, if they had shared information, the Justice Department we'll go to set all no. No. You were not supposed to do that under our rules, so that now natural effective having. Those regulations in place was to paralyse the agents, because the easiest thing to do and you have regulations use just do not outweigh you, can't ever get in trouble right. So they know that and as a result, they want to have it few regulations as possible, but now you see the other side of that yes political by what what standard was was Horowitz using in and help persuasive, are not defined as his case on that element of it. While ever, as I said, the Fox coverage

I thought I thought he was using a standard that was familiar to me because it's the same one that Washington seems to employ whenever there is a jihadist attack. You know when the ongoing again data yeah, what Wait. We may never know what motivated rent Entire, like those ten tonnes of evidence of exactly what motivated them, so you know, I think, there's plenty of information there won't. Let me let me just say what my main beef with horror, which is in this regard. I think your job as a prosecutor is to draw conclusions not to not to

flag, fat on part of the job is to make a judgment about what it all means and what Horowitz is telling us is that, with respect to the opening of the investigation, he didn't find any positive evidence, meaning anything in writing in a document or in testimony that was was a deuce. You know the interviews that he did with witnesses but he didn't get any one or anything. That said I was biased, he was biased, they were, we were biased, there was bias, but he doesn't into. He doesn't try to infer from the behaviour that he saw and the things that were said whether bias. factored into the decision making and then, when you move from the EAST

decision under their regulations to open the investigation to the more difficult decisions of what investigative tactics to use like confidential informants or fires. Surveillance, he says there that the decision is much more Marcie. In other words, he can't he can't draw conclusions. So here is my problem among others. If you can't tell me what caused something then- tell me what you think didn't cause it becomes until you have a red till you have an explanation. I dont want to hear your theories for, for you know the things that didn't cause it, because you can't tell me what did so. Why are you know what what what

Good. Is that and the other thing is the way that we draw conclusions in most criminal cases, and this is the prosecutors job is too, is to infer from behaviour and statements what people were debated by and what their intent was and you're. In this situation, where you find seventeen different abuses of the Pfizer regulation or the or though. You know whether it was the regulations or you know, common sense that you're supposed to give the court material information and not mislead the court. Nor so you have seventeen different abuses, daddy fines and they all cut the same way. They all cut in favour of trying to push the theory that the that the campaign is increasing

with the Russians you not visit. This is not like a situation where you have random mistakes, were some of them caught one way and some of them cut the other. They all got the same direction and then you say well was biased. The reason I dont know I can't say well something having coins it. You know what it's not like people are not automatic right that there was obviously something that caused it, and we have a ton of evidence out there on the basis of a lot of statements that were made that there's a lot of anti trump animus involved. So it just seems to me that you know this obvious starts to be connected here and he just elected not to connect them and it to me it's of a piece with what I thought. The main flaw in his Hillary Clinton emails invest

gay should was which we ve talked about this before, but just to just to recall what it was. He said in that investigation, where the question arose about whether this or that, decision that they made in terms of not charging Clinton and not doing this, and not doing that investigative tactic that they would ordinarily have done in a different kind of investigation, but opted for whatever reason not to do in the pillory investigation what he ended up saying was. He saw evidence of bias, but with respect to each action or omission. There were also potentially legitimate explanations for why an objective agent would What do the things that make the decisions they made and what he said was he couldn't draw a conclusion matter of fact, but as far as us, Sanctions were concerned if there was a look

shit, I'm an explanation and an abusive explanation. We had to assume that the agent was acting legitimately, that We are title to a presumption of legitimacy. Here. we have the situation where he basically just says. I can't decide, isn't right now and I just think that's not very helpful cell said: do you think there was bias yeah? Of course it was bias. I mean, I think it would be right. I think it be ridiculous to think there wasn't by otherwise rich the the abuses that we're done or to be charitable. The mistakes that were made cut in both directions, but they don't- and you re not talking about like two or three which are about seventeen so in this biased would necessarily then I'm a democratic rights republican buys it just what of it specifically directed at.

down from but you're either get any website for him, a Yo Yo Yo yo. I dont. In fact I you'd I've. I've said for a long time. I wrote it in the book as well. I think LISA Page get to bed rap. You know she said a lot of stupid things in those tax. I say, as I say, that she said a lot of stupid thing in her tax. I say it with the with the panic top in the back of my mind that no one ever read my tacking. He goes out so, but when she

testified. I thought she was a pretty impressive witness. I didn't believe everything she said. I didn't think she was intentionally lying so much as giving self serving testimony which were all prone to when we're trying to explain ourselves. But I thought when she was asked about bias like her own personal by us, she was a very different person than you would believe she was based on sex. the reporting and particularly the president's tweets. So she said like, for example, she says you know, I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan either you don't sound to be- that's like I am, and maybe this is because, as up at the Justice Department for an Eu Us attorney's office, the such a law time- but I met a million LISA pages- and I was friends with a lot of them- it seemed to me that she was probably a political. Speaking, centrist, maybe mildly left of centre.

but strong law and order law enforcement, national security person who had This role reaction to Trump, which many people do but also was not crazy about people that she didn't think were serious about law enforcement policy law and order issues and national security And I think she's the kind of person who you know had she not gotten enmeshed in this investigation, She probably would have had a very successful, career in law enforcement, which she had had up until that point, and I think the absent this car, this investigation you'd be perfectly happy to have LISA page working on virtually anything else in the government.

So I'm not I'm not. I don't I'm not trying to suggest that, because these people by us and I believe, acted on the bias that that makes them the worse people in the world or it may. It means that in the roll guilty of a criminal conspiracy. Now that said, there is a lot of misleading the court that went on here, and anybody who was involved in that is involved in the fraud on the coup and if it turns out that she was involved in fraud on the court than you know, it's gonna have the consequences. I assume that it ought to have, but I think we should review we judgment on that. Until we see we are for the moment they have about. You know four or five people who they are looking at in terms of fraud on the court in terms of like who knew for sure that they were giving the court missing

formation and the people who were involved in that order. Fry yeah. So let's get into fighting just just step a moment. So another question about the inception of the saying so they get it starts with the cap from the friendly foreign government, the effort she has. The assault yeah struck the authority also known, as also known as Australia, a k, a Austria based on this conversation with pop up was in London. Is it in London already Austria, whose is it ass? It happened another, not another refugee. Yes to yet after those keeping score here and you. So that this is over her Papadopoulos, talking about near the Russians, might have salaries. Emails

They know it. They don't even say that this is the problem. With this whole catastrophe. I mean just a gesture on wine. What happened yet Papadopoulos has this conversation with MRS in we have happened. Dappling says that myths should said the Russians had thousands of emails of Hilary. Now we start with the problem that myths it denies that he called Papadopoulos that by something Papadopoulos he's telling the truth. Papadopoulos then has this conversation in the bar in London with downer, who was the australian ambassador in London you know he's not referred to by name, I dont think in the report and he's the F F g guy for right, but anyway, so Papadopoulos Downer are talking in the bar and Papadopoulos, says,

something along the lines of that you know the Russians may have dirt on Hilary and what Horowitz in didn't, I think a kind of a tongue in cheek way for Horwitz, as you could tell it is testimonies, I think, he's a good guy, but he's not exactly a laugh riot. You know right,

but in what for him, I think it is a kind of a tongue in cheek recitation what he says. Basically, is that downer, after two and a half months after two months after he talks to Papa, doubtless at the bar wikileaks puts out the Dnc emails now remember. These are not Emil's of Hilary right on these other Dnc, Emil's and downer decides to draw up a an inference from that and what tat anyone harlots calls it is. He said that bit that there was a suggestion that Papadopoulos had made a suggestion making. Anyone like this is this is so penumbra. What's so it's so amorphous

its remarkable but understand Papadopoulos never send emails to downer to the extent that Papadopoulos head emails in his mind, he was talking about the same emails that tromp was talking about, which is the thirty thousand thirty three thousand emails. Hillary Clinton purge from her private home brew service system is no evidence and there never was evidence that either Papadopoulos or myths should would have had any reason to know that the russian intelligence services were hacking the day and see much less that they had gotten those emails to Wikileaks and those with the that could put is no evidence connecting them. That so this is all bogged down drawing an inference which which harlots amusingly

refers to us that the paper that was made the suggestion of a suggestion, but the whole thing is- is a five alarm mass. Ok, yes, I say it must be said supposedly kindness to Papa, doubtless HOLLAND. The said denies that pop up Blocker feeling it and some formed a downer and a downer when he sees the Wikileaks story or dump says holy Cow Papadopoulos may have told me about this big conspiracy, I'm calling the FBI. Right and one hundred dollars, nor you mean you ve been downer down all downer yeah yeah. This is another interesting thing, rich that I think has to be followed up, and this is. This is interesting for the door. I'm invested and down there doesn't golly FBI. He goes to american officials in London, and they are very there

very vaguely described and it makes it it raises the question which has been raised in some of the reporting out. There is the person he initially one to in a hospital who was then the CIA is person over there, but is now the head of the CIA so that all those things I am accident down or taxi american officials who then at some point take it to the FBI, the yes down or talks to american officials. Ah, he somehow it gets to the State Department and it gets referred from the State Department to the FBI, so so in your views to the FBI is now in possession of this information in laundered through this Ghana telethon. So what I did

the idea, what did it do and what should have done? Well, it opened an investigation of the campaign and of Papadopoulos, and eventually it opens an investigation of for people who are attached to the ear to the Trump campaign and the way they open. The investigation seems to have been alone. You know these other investigations they get opened, a lotta that seems to have been driven by the steel dossier What they're saying is the original investigation of the campaign and of Papadopoulos was not driven by the steel dossier, was driven by this right information from the friendly, far government We know that is but he's giving the laughed a little hope to say ass. He wasn't the dossier But you know, but we know it's, it's not.

only. We already know it's not solely the information from the friendly foreign government, because the other thing we know that's going on at this point riches that there's an investigation of Russia's the whole apart from Trump? They know that Russia, they are going back to twenty, maybe late, two thousand and fourteen, but certainly two thousand and fifteen. they know that Russia is trying to manipulate or who is trying to web conduct cyber operations against american political figures of both parties right their trade they're, trying to hack into the Republicans to try. Hack into the Democrats, so that investigation is going on and that in forms of some of their obviously the judgments that they may in July? The fact that they know the Russians are up to no good to begin with, so the friendly foreign government thing the Australians is what connects the Trump campaign to it.

least officially, but there's a lot of information out there. That indicates that they were concerned about the Trump campaign before the friendly foreign government had the universe doubtless incident and Nunez Report, for example, talked about it in the bud in the late spring of of twenty sixteen, the FBI. Director then call me briefing them the principles Committee in the eye at the White House, young national security group, on what what appears to have been Carter, page and poor man, for so they had concerns about the Trump campaign before they got the information from the Australians

you know what I've been saying all along? What I right in the book is, I think the FBI comes to this party late and I think what we're gonna ultimately find out. Is that a lot of the suspicion that was in the air was generate, goodbye CIA. In its communications with with friendly foreign governments who were concerned about Trop, because of the NATO writer reckon and because of the Putin rhetoric and and all the other jazz. But I dont think we The whole story yet and of course Horowitz, is lenses very narrow he's. Looking only at the Justice Department and the FBI

and they are very interesting and very important. But I dont think we're gonna get a complete mosaic until we get the other peace, which is the intelligence community in its interactions with the foreign intelligence services so set so against. Taking all that are on board too well, what would have been a proper wasted at the ITA handle this information that was coming to it. Well, I I think that before they opened an investigation of the political campaign, they needed to take a much more careful look at what they had because

That's what they knew they had from the from just. If you went to view the friendly foreign government and if you interview Downer, it would have been pretty clear if he was competently interviewed that they didn't have solid evidence that the Trump campaign had anything to do with Wikileaks, or you would need to do you- data question down or for about fifteen minutes, to understand that there was an straight line from what Papadopoulos told him to the to the release by wikileaks of these email. I mean you know. In the end, these aren't even there was no reason to think that Papadopoulos

had any reason to know what russian intelligence was up to or that, whatever that that the emails that he was talking about were necessarily the emails. In fact, from Dounia you wouldn't even have known, the Papadopoulos was talking about e mails become because he, the word he says he used, was dark and I have never thought rich, and I think this is this is a like a broken record on this, but I still think it's important. Those Dnc emails were not harmful. To MRS Clinton, I mean were embarrassing for the for the day and see and they did show that the Dnc was in the tank for MRS Clinton over over over Bernie Shore, but they were not damaging to Hillary Clinton, and we were people were talking about at the time

were what was on the thirty three thousand emails that she purged and the big thing that was out there in the air was. Were there a bunch of Clinton foundation? Emails that showed? You know some paid a play stuff going on in the State Department the DMZ emails. Hillary Clinton was not even corresponded Dnc emails, so you know to open an investigation of the Trump campaign under circumstances. Where the only evidence that you had tying the trunk campaign potentially to Wikileaks footing at the Dnc emails was a suggestion of a suggestion by Papadopoulos. That way not be enough to buy mind to open investigation of the trunk campaign. Now, if you wanted to open a preliminary investigation. I dont- I wouldn't have supported that, but you could have

preliminary investigation and perhaps go out and investigate you. Don't do some background investigation on Papadopoulos to see if he had any. He if you could come up with any reason why he would be clued into What did I generally rodya? Any russian connections right, I could see that I wouldn't have been- take your support of all of it on the record as we understand it, because I think what's not being factored in enough, and this is the thing that bar of course has been talking about. this is not an ordinary run of the mill investigation. What you're talking about now is exactly what we don't want done with national security powers that are supposed to protect us from foreign threats to him, organ interest. We don't want them used in against a political campaign even in any way that's gonna compromise are domestic politics. In the absence of really really good reason, and they also from what I can

see. They never had a really really good reason here. So so when they see the dossier come in and and how does that result in a car, a page fire? This is. This is really a bad story for the FBI, so you know Papadopoulos, if you, if you, if you accept everything that we ve been told so far. So Papadopoulos, then, is the original target right and the problem that they have is they run informants Papadopoulos

And he tells me you mean shit, you mean they run, see justice C H, asses, yes, not five. I don't want to go there and he tells him. What are you talking about there? You know we don't have anything to do with the right. I don't know what you're talking about the Russians to you. I don't know what you're talking about and the Trump campaign doesn't have anything to do with that and the the disturbing thing rich is they're getting this feedback from the from the informal sir using, and they don't tell the court that when they ultimately finally go for the five warrant, so they d this all the here's where there is theirs cross currents they find out about the the Papadopoulos stuff happens at the

dove July of of twenty sixty we're all talking about twenty sixteen, so I don't have to keep silent on this. At the same time, at the end of July, Bruce or who is the Justice Department, high ranking Justice Department, official, his wife is working, a fusion gps, which generates the field ass. He ate Broussard meets with Steel and steal tells him basically what he's been working on. He thinks Donald Trump is in Cahoots with the with the Russians. He thinks that peace compromised-

he's, got this information out now. Steel had started writing his reports in June. Right, though, by this point, is he's been at it for a number of weeks, or here this from steel and gets very disturbed. So he immediately calls his old friend who that they used to work cases together, Andy MC into and then within a matter of days. Probably the beginning of August, or has a meeting in Macao Caves office with the cave and LISA Page and tells him what he's heard from steel. So now we know that steals information is coming in, at least in that form to the cave, in the mean time before

it happens at the beginning of July on July. Fifth, I think that virtually the same day, that call me gives his press conference in the Hilary emails case near. by Guy ADA, who is the legal attache for the bureau in Rome, comes to London to interview steel and gets the first information from the steel. Ass, you saw the steel dossier is coming into the bureau on July. Fifth, the beginnings of it. We don't know what it is. Apparently, a screw up, guy ETA is is in home, but he's attached to an Eurasian organised crime unit in New York, and we don't know if the pipeline is getting the information that Guy ADA is getting from steel. If that

getting to headquarters, even though headquarters would have had to sign off, you would think on Guy ADA leaving room to goaded to London in order to interview steel, which he needed, the State Department permission to do with the odd if the State Department was cut in on that, but FBI had Cory's was it, but in any event this is so. The steel dossier is making it into the FBI on two different tracks. It's making it in through or its making it an through a guy ADA and this New York, Eurasian, organised crime unit, so that information is coming into the bureau as well and within short order in certainly by August, and the bureau says it is for us a headquarters is concerned by MID September.

The steel dossier information about page is being poured over, and by September nineteen they have decided to try to go for a fine warrant based on page, not tat Darfur is evidently they considered getting up five worn on Papadopoulos, but opted not to probably because of all the exculpatory information they had coupled with how fuzzy the the Papadopoulos information to begin with, at least with. If you credit the steel dossier, then you could say at least with respect to page they heads they had. Very strong assertions of wrong doing they had you know, but yet you have steel telling them. There is a conspiracy of cooperation between the truck. campaign and the Russians man afforded the point person he's: U in pages and emissary page, went to Russia

in July and had meetings with these two top guys close to a potent they discuss. The quid pro quo, involving the you know the sanctions for Cartagena for help for helping Trump in the camp. By dumping, you know bed information on Hilary, so at least there I mean it turns out there based on nonsense? They, like you, know multiple hearsay, but at least stairs you know they're dead. Very strong assertions of wrong doing, whereas with Papadopoulos I don't think they ever had anything like that. So do they do any due diligence on the dossier before going to the court. It looks like no, it looks like

it looks like they essentially accepted steals word for it and that, certainly what with what we had heard from senators Grassland, Graham, that call me told them when he, when he brief, the Senate, and this was after all, this had exploded. Twenty seventeen- call me was asked by in this briefing that he had, I think, with gradually, Graham and find time when he was asked. Why did you do you know? Why did why? Would you guys go to the FISA Court, with the information you had would call me said was well. We believe they believe the source meaning steel. Now

You know. I've said I don't want to get on my my hobby horse about how steel is not a source but he's not a source, but that was their basic thing. They d, they basically short circuited the kind of due diligence that they would do by saying that they credited seal because they had prior good experience with them. This brings us rich by the way, to something that's important in horror, which is report and again It's pretty shoddy procedures on on the poorly FBI, and that is that it did. The FBI is supposed to go through what they call the woods procedures before they go to the fire

the court and that's how they make sure they verify all of the allegations that you're gonna make an Pfizer application, but Would Horowitz says, is their definition of verification for purposes of satisfying the wood procedures is that they have a witness or an informant who stands behind every assertion, and that's that steel and their well yeah, but a year and at an here's that here's the problem with that. Obviously, that they're telling the court that this in nation has been verified, but it turns out what they mean is they have somebody who can say that they told him that, though it in other words, let's say, an informant and I tell them Richard spaghetti for dinner last night.

they don't know they don't bother to ask me. Why did you have dinner with rich? Did you talk to someone who did? Did somebody see rich rich? So it's just just cause. I could be inventing that added nothing, but they could say it's verified because I told them and that's a big problem if you're not not gonna, if you're not gonna, do Jill due diligence either on the assertion itself or the credibility and bias persons tell it to you and that that's appeal that appears to be would happen here said and when today, they eventually doo doo doo, some due diligence trade here Y yeah after they ve already gotten one five warrant and are getting ready to go back for another one. They finally start to try to figure out what you know they they go through. All of the different assertions that steel,

some and what they find is that they can't you know in the literal, meaning a verified. They can't verify much of anything. The only things they can verify are the things that it that are not dispute like they can. They can verify that Carter page went to Russia, everybody knows Carter, page went to Russia. Carter page, never made a secret that he was going to rush. It was covered in the media in Russia that he was there. So the issue, of course, is what did he do while he was in Russia and that's what they can verify, so they do start to do that and they find that they can. They can only minimally verify, steals information and not the important stuff, and then they start to talk to some of his sources and what they find. As you know, as we ve talked about before still hasn't set foot Russia in twenty years because it covers

long since the late nineteenth nineties, so he's relying on a network of sources. He basically relies on one guy who has to pass a sub source and they go out and they talk to the main source and the maid for seal and the main source says. I can tell him that stuff or that's a distortion of what I told him he's wrong about. This is wrong. but that was indicates that the source that the source that the sub sources getting stuff from right now, two steps removed That source. Is that reliable that there you don't embellish is yet you know you have to take things with a grain of salt and what this guy basically says is what what he gave

Steel was a lot of innuendo and ballroom banter that that hadn't been corroborated or or investigated in any way and was incredible and what he s p I am doing. Is they go back to the fire, a court and they tell the judge that they have now interviewed, steals vain source. Now a bite, mind you now they are explained to the court why they are continuing to rely on seals information, even though steel has now been booted out of

the investigation, because they catch him. You know he's he's undeniably talking to the media right, so the question obviously arises well, if, if you had a kick Emily investigation, why should we believe is information? So what takes all accord as well? We ve talked too is sub source and we find him cooperative and credible, and that's it that's all they tell the court and what they don't tell the court is what he was cooperative incredible about. Is that with the information that still was not sense, so it's really. I mean it's outrageous. So where does this thing come in with Carter pay?

age. Talking to that the CIA on Deep Sea and make it sound is something dark were actually should have been considered something exculpatory corrected. It really is a very, very dark story in NAM Carter, page apparently was an FBI source, I'm sorry, a CIA source from at least two thousand and eight to two and thirteen and perhaps further along and the reason this is relevant is when the FBI is describing the probable clause against steal their relying on information from that time period. To show that he's in Cahoots with the Russians he's talking to Russians very disturbing and in August, when there, when they are investigating,

I feel that the bureau they asked the CIA and the CIA tells him. Oh yeah he's ares he's an asset of ours yeah from this timeframe, and they don't reveal that the court now this information goes to this sum goes to this FBI, Lawyer Klein Psmith so down the road they have too. You know they're going back for yet another. Why? I should highlight here.

The CIA passes that information, as I understand it, the FBI in August. That's about six weeks. You know they don't get the final war until October nineteenth, so we're talking about almost a two month period, a time right before they even go to court. There told this and they ignore it and they gotta they gotta get the warrant anyway down the road. I can't remember, for this is the second renewal, the first we know the second renewal, the agent who is supposed to be the Athenians on the submission. You know that the the fact submission you know, there's all kinds of documentation has begun defies accord but which are about the case Asian who's gonna provide the probable cause and sign that port it aren't so is the main fact Appian

He's concern about what is being asked to sign, so he asks. How are we sure that page has no prior history that we need to be concerned about with the agency or with any other government intelligence service and climate? the tells him oh yeah, we have that from the pure I have any. We could corroborate that with a with an email for the agencies like well I'd like to see the email, Imagine that he wants to read the information before he signs on the veracity of it, what a concept, so, what collides with twas is? He finds this email and, of course, email

as the CIA telling the FBI that this guy was a was an asset and he basically changes to not an asset, and so so. Why would he do that? What there is adjusted the belief that this medication is so important? The facts can get in the way of it or is it just like you and your invested in and something what's going on here, I think invested, I dont. No rich, that I would say, invested like as a matter of political bias. That may explain why you don't tell the court that in the first place- but I think by the- why would you change the document I think be? The answer to that is by then their dug in right? They ve already gotten one or two warrants and if they now say we ve had this information since August at the sky was actually a CIA

asset and all that stuff. We told you about his sinister potential meetings with the Russians between two thousand. Eight in two thousand thirteen: well never mind. He was a CIA asset yeah. You would figure this can it be scandalous now the court's gonna go knots. Everyone's gonna go nuts because I've gotten warrants on the basis of these misrepresentation. So I take it that point there, figured. They had already made misrepresentation, so they're kind of dug in, and they just made it worse. So how would you were formed of vital process going forward with our observers is no one's vision of what what should happen right? Well, I dont like Pfizer. So if I had my brothers, I get rid of it entirely. I'd get the court out of it and I would be felt congresses ability to do oversight, because I really think that you know the problem

here. Ridge is that this is. This is a political function, it's not a judicial function. It does its not value added to have the court invite from the from the national security side. There's no value added for having the court involved and in terms of our justice system. We shouldn't want the court involved in non judicial activities because they have to be an impartial judge of the activities of the executive branch. So you don't want them in cahoots with the executive branch making these judgments. I just I just think it's a terrible system. It's always been a terrible system and it you know you don't want your most important political decisions, which are the ones about national security being made about by the non

little actors who we insulate from politics, because we want them to be accountable and because of five, are there not accountable? Look what happened here? You had all this misconduct that occurred and what have we heard four months, don't tell me about misconduct. Don't tell me about abuse. These warrants were signed off by four different republican judges. This was perfectly fine and all the people who were involved in it waved around the judges. Signature on the warrant, saying you know we basically had we had the warrant, we could do. What would you know that the judge looked at this and blasted so don't tell us that we abused anyone's rights. We went to the court, so I just think it's a terrible systems,

of accountability in a thicket national security? Were you really want to have accountability, so my pipe dream, of course, is that we would get rid of Pfizer. I'm not crazy enough to think that that's actually gonna happen any taught anytime soon but I do think there has to be much more searching oversight in terms of what the Pfizer court does and what the FBI gives to the fire a court, and I think that they have to have more exacting regulations in terms of accountable justice, deportment officials who they have to clear things with. Before they do. They do anything that could be a case of using these.

national intelligence, foreign counter intelligence powers in a way that could affect domestic politics. You know we have all kinds of regulations that we put in place. To make sure that intelligence investigations don't steer criminal investigations, you know the big thing that would that be worried about with the wall. The regional war was put in and in ninety nineties was the Justice Department was afraid that the F b I would prevent the jet, and mainly the FBI, but also Some parts of the Justice Department, the concern was- was the pretext, dual use of Pfizer. Do criminal investigations on to circumvent, That is where you didn't have a product crime and the agents wanted to count you to sit on people that they thought were really guilty of something, but they had been able to come up with anything yet so the idea was you dont want em to you

as well as a with a national security pretext. You don't want to have him come in and pretend that this has something to do with the foreign hours threateningly now the United States, so that they can get Pfizer EL its authority, rather than the usual criminal surveillance authority, to investigate- and I think that those checks have to be in place with respected, to not just steering criminal investigations, but also the use of these powers in constitutionally protected activity that we don't want them involved. In particular, politics they have to get you know I can. I can certainly understand that you don't want it. You don't wanna, come up the FBI's regulations with like different levels of suspicion that they need for different,

investigations. I can see where that would instantly be paralyzing and get convoluted, but you have to get a cannibal people outside the FBI, which means in the Justice Department who sign off on this and who asked them the hard questions that have to be asked before they green light. These kind of investigations the big failing that happened here is the FBI was able to do this, all internally on its own, without having to get anybody's approval. But you know One other thing I would would say about the storage: you can make these procedures exacting, as you want to make on the main failing that happened here. Was they lied? You know that.

There was information that they didn't provide to the court and they didn't. We provide to the Justice Department lawyers. As far as we know at the moment, in a climate was an FBI lawyer. They it you can you know you could do what I'm suggesting and put in a wrong of approvals at the Justice Department that have to be who all have to sign off before you hall often do something that could affect politics. But if the agents don't tell the truth, then the system can't work anyway. Yes, so I think, as Andy directed through a full hour of discussion, the idea for sir. We have to do impeachment living as an afterthought here, but let's let it two things one. What do you think of it

the merits of the two articles, I think it's frivolous. I really do the fact that they had to. I may look everything's driven by article one, which is abuse of power. our and they landed on abuse of power because they couldn't prove a crime? You know they couldn't they. They thought about can't aims. I am sure that they want to extortion they. What then shifted over the quid pro quo for awhile change, that to bribery, because it Paul tested

than Quid pro quo and in the end they shrunk from that as well as they just they. They didn't their proof, wasn't good enough, and you can't get away from the thing here that that, ultimately, nothing of importance happened, which is dear to me, the most important thing I continue to be unimpressed and critical of the republican and White House argument that there was no quid pro quo here. I'm I'm perfectly willing to accept for argument sake. That tromp was mainly motivated by wanting to have an investigation that would be harmful to his political fell, but I think it matters a lot and I forgot him shift does too by the way he conducted himself. It matters a lot whether you're asking a foreign government to make up evidence out of whole cloth verses, asking them to conduct an investigation that cries out.

Be investigated and we're talking about a situation where trumps shouldn't a mention by name, but if he had said to the Ukrainians we were given you a lot of money. We really want you to root out corruption, no matter how high it go. even in our own government. That would have been perfectly appropriate thing to say and you could have had the same result. So

You know the bottom line is I dont think it was that outrageous to ask for these investigations, even if trumpeted it in a trompe way, and I and the ultimate important thing is that nothing happened, and I guess the second article just quickly. I think there are some circumstances where, for president withheld information from Congress, that Congress could impatient and showed him patron, but you know you have to look at the facts of every case here. This was a very politicized effort for a long time. The Congress wouldn't even vote on it. That is the house wooden vote on it,

I dont regarded as a legitimate house impeachment inquiry until they voted and even though I dont think as a matter of constitutional law that the house has to indulge, the president of the President wants to go to court and litigate privilege questions its unreasonable for the house to impeach over that, especially when the house itself has gone to court over some of these same privilege issues and over the some of these same disclosure issues, for example, that a day this is in the diesel circuit now litigating, whether they are entitled to see the grand jury, information in the Mullah investigation for purposes of looking at obstruction of of justice and whether there was any in people offences

They said that that was vital information to their investigation and they went to court over. So I dont think that they can have it both ways. I don't think they can both go to court and then impeach tromp for wanting to go to court or impeach executive, redoubt, impeach Trump, because executive official say let's litigate this in court, I'm not saying that again, Congress doesn't after indulges Congress held a colder and contempt for failing to to provide information in the fast and furious investigation. You know there are things that you can do short of contempt, which which are in the nature of arm, twisting to try to get compliance. I just think that impeachment a real overreaching

yeah. So what do you think sent to trial? Will look like what you think it should look like? I think it I don't think they'll be a full blown trial. I think there could be, but I think, there's a chance that this will be treated like in a in a court case what ammo, To dismiss the indictment would look like in every in every criminal case, rich after their grand jury indict and the case gets assigned to a judge. You don't just go to trial. The defendant has an opportunity to file motions with the court, including motions to dismiss the indictment because of the irregularities in the investigation or irregularities in the grand jury. I think that the Senate could entertain

a motion by the President, the President's council that there was such a dearth of due process and such obvious politicization in the house proceedings that thee, that the case should be dismissed, particularly under circumstances where it appears obvious at the president that there is no way that the house, but the Senate will come up with sixty seven votes to be to remove the president, and I think there is a good chance that Mcconnell would indulged said Anne and, if they re, if it becomes clear that they can't

two hundred and sixty seven, which they can just say we're not going to consider it any further. We're going to consider rum acquitted that that you would be able rich to it to predict this better than I can seems to me that the the politics of this, which I don't think enough people have have focused on yet I don't think for Trump's electoral, We offer his campaign standpoint. He doesn't want. Oh it's not enough that he can't be removed in the Senate. I dont think he wants a majority vote in favour of removal unite. It seems to me the politically that would really. hurt him. You know, I think, as long as all the Republican Stick together. Any winds like fifty one onwards with fifty two forty eight, is that we need one. I think he's probably find with that, but if he gets three defections and the Democrats in the campaign can say that we impeach them in in the house and a majority of the Republican controlled Senate.

so wanted and removed. I think that probably is pretty pretty bad for his electoral prospects. On another matter for that matter. A lot longer, but I think that over under on this is basically zero have hard time seeing even did Romney voting to remove it, but must now distant. My soundings that they think what prompted was wrong here, but they also sincerely believe that doesn't just fine I believe that's right, but I know we're running lumber. Let me ask you this: yes, they sincerely believe that, but would would all of them be comfortable with dismissing this without a trial Now with the Democrats screaming that we need to have a trial, would would it would there be waived

republican Sewell say you look at the end of a trial on unwilling to acquit on, but I am not willing to flush this thing without a hard luck ear, so without a trial, meaning without calling witnesses yeah like if, if, if Mcconnell wants to treat this as a motion to dismiss without a trial, because at that legacy, natural defects in the house, but like after that, the house measures are presented her before they have a chance to plan right at the beginning rights, the beginning. Let him let him make a motion to dismiss. I think there

Probably it I'm not sure yet. Sixty one votes dismiss without at least some sums for the trial, the matter how breeze? Yes, he is just when it gets gonna get more like two witnesses. I just not sure, is in anyone's interest the White House interest or if your Corey gardener, your vulnerable, they really wanted to drive through hearing is very important. Someone enough for two days have on the set of floor as we do not adopt the war. I think that I was gonna set of problems outside it. Ok, I'll just go to say that I think the problem with this is the trip warriors having the trial wants to trial starts. I think it becomes very hard to Europe was Trop, wants to put his defence and right. If there's gonna be a trial, we're gonna have,

then there's gotta be a trial. You don't owe me like. There's gonna, be it's gotta, be very hard to keep it abbreviated. If, if you, if you true, if you say we, we can't dismissed us without a trial, we have to have a trial. Then it's gotta be hard to keep it short. Yes right! Well, I think gas we ve run at a time we ve runway passing form. It is an interesting, as I did, though, say those international partners to Pakistan produced by the incomparable Sarah Sherry. They saw you for listening and take you and your Carthage thanks rich.