From CAFE. Welcome to stay too I'm prepared. We did not address collusion, which is not a legal terms. Rather we just on whether the evidence was sufficient. Any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy- and it was not Let me say one more thing over the course of my career. I have seen. Real challenges to our democracy- The russian government's effort we interfere in our election is among them serious This deserves the attention of every American. That's she'll Council Robert S, mothers, a third he's, not my guess this week, but he is the principal witness, Bob mother gave its first public testimony since the release of his two volume report. Fourteen weeks ago, four documented mothers investigation into russian efforts to interfere in our election and the presidency

to impede the investigation, in other words, to obstruct join me for today Second, ever special Mueller Edition of stay tuned with my friend and Millbrook and is a former attorney general of New Jersey, a longtime friend and my co host on the weekly CAFE insider podcast, okay, so ready to break down Mueller testimony that's coming up stationed. This week will focused on Bob Mahler, but every Thursday and stay to answer your questions and top with interesting people about the intersection of law, democracy and justice subscribe anywhere. You listen to Pakistan want to help spread. The word raging review They turned with pre apple podcast that helps new listeners, find the shop

I am high priest. So here we are in the big day, it's Wednesday July. Twenty. Fourth, it's about four p m Bob Mahler highly anticipated testimony in front of two house committees just concluded a few minutes ago to let people know sitting in a picture we're in a podcast studio in Washington, DC or nations capital just a few blocks from where the testimony occurred and you and I watched part of it together, part of it separately before we get to the substance and the performance and what it means. Future I doing to brag about one thing that is when we, when we preview the episode on the CAFE insider podcast, we talked about what can drinking Amy might do in a listener, actually posed the question. Yes, deadlock pose the question at people

how drunk would you and at an Milgram have been if you two had actually taken up the drinking game from stay tuned into drinking game was every time but mother says I refer to the report. Yes, to take a drink How could we have been so down like a blue I wonder I m sure some someone on the internet has done an account of how many times Robert said that today, but it was a lot was lucky. I mean you couldn't even done more specific drinking game. Is that every time by mothers as the word purview, as in that's, not my purview, you ticket swill over Mozart, yes, there was drunk. There is also a lot of our refer. You to the report that I can answer I mean there were a million different ways in which he said, which was to be expected. Yes, agreed because he said that that would be true. He would not go outside the four corners of the report, which pretty much he stuck even in ways that were annoying to the Republicans want asked what the origins of the investigation as well and to the Democrats, who wanted to sort of get him

sort of take the facts in the reporting and go to the next level conclusions, and If I were to sort of characterize today's, hearing in some ways, I think that when people ask smaller facts and specific fact, related to the report. We got it. More answers, then, when either I the Democrats and Republicans tried to get Robert Mahler to draw conclusions about his work. That was not happening. Normally that's not happening in a lot of people predicted that more would be powerful, is to have by Mahler, read in his own voice seconds of the report by definition by the way is within the four corners of the report. As we have learned by mother Natalie refused to do that, but there was a negotiating issue for him and every once in a while, a member tried to ask him to read a sentence or two from the report needs to. I would prefer that you do that yeah. What's interesting about that is so one of the effective. Is to question. Mahler would have been to go through a couple. Folks did this to go through some of the specific lines from

report and in even have him read it. It was incredibly clear that he wasn't prepared to be anyone's witness, neither what rights nor the Republicans? It's like you cause you know in this year Furthermore, as the piazza- and I was talking about him- is the ping pong ball like you what he wanted. None of that, and so he was he was like in my view, he was just incredibly going out of to be non political, almost to an extent that you just? U dont, you don't really and very minimalist, so I was on set at CNN, for the entire portion and for the judiciary can and I remember thinking to myself that before the first break, I don't think there was a multi sentence, answer that by mother gave to anything as before that. You want to be either upon or opinion. Yes, it would be a prop yeah. He doesn't want to here in you know, Tom style adds impeachment by ashy reciting the stuff in the port. I think you just said exactly why he didn't read from the report, because he doesn't want that to be taken and used for

your side for or against the president, its she took as he very much did not want to testify for me like really like really really didn't want. It incredibly did not want to testify. That was clear. I think from the moment he walked in today that he was thereunder subpoena. He was comply with that subpoena, but that he really tat, I think, to be there and end to your point. You're right, most of the answers today were true, corrects I refer you to my report. Not gonna say it just there were only a few times were he actually. Hot when and another marijuana monitors with much right agree without characterisation right, I can't adopt your characterisation. I think I said that I cannot accept that characterisation, not certain. I would agree with that characterisation. It sort of interesting to be We are hearing in this case to hearings, overtime and seeing how the new shifts and seeing what seems him.

In early may be seems less important later in the day, and so maybe we'll go through some of what the big take. A ways were and whether there is big as they seemed when they first happening. There is also the big take away. All morning. The cable news networks have as their Cairo on something that happened in the first five minutes after the opening statements, and that was the examined can conducted by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee jury, neither who, by the way, I gave an aid to that. He cares about my create and I agree everybody and your grading a little bit on a curve. When you talk about Congress, but I thought contrary to some people's expectations, that he didn't dramatically good job by asking short questions, point questions. Yes, no questions pan was on a roll asking mother is this true? Is that true is the following? True motive would reply yes or no, and the thing that got a lot of people pension and remained sort of like the Big NEWS headline for a long time today. Earlier in the day, was when he said so. The report did not include that he did not committed shrug of justice. Is that correct? That is good.

And what about total exoneration? Did you actually we exonerate the present now. In fact, Europe words expressed. States that it does not exonerate the present does? Did you report totally exonerate the president No that's right, and that was really important, because Mahler Report clearly stated that didn't exonerate the president, but then we ve had now months of the president and other people in the president's behalf coming out in saying it's a total exoneration, and so it was actually without making. Or say the president is a liar. It was putting up the without saying But essentially saying is what the president has said about Europe being an exoneration. Is that true and Mahler Saying point blank? No, it's not Irish and that was important to hear publicly. So so is a big deal. I guess I have a country and a second, because it was by mother, saying it in saying no, but in some his unsurprising, because, as you point out, it was in the

Fort Dolly was it in the report? It was in the summary that a lot of people have taken issue will cause a distorted the report, but the one thing you did not start was this line from the report it says we will not exonerate the present on the issue of obstruction and it's interesting that the fact that he sang and on television for some reason becomes a much bigger deal, even though we need its Bob mothers view we knew that even the attorney general had to convey that that was by mothers view. With a few things that was not distorted in the summary I think you're totally, But I would also note that Mahler wrote the report. The report came out bar completely frames that he does say that there's no exoneration, but he goes out of his way to save the president hasn't committed obstruction. Justice end is exonerated on the conspiracy to work with the Russians to influence the election, and so the presence that repeatedly and sir having that be one of the ongoing themes.

The past few months. I do think it was important for smaller, specifically and personally to say. No, that's just not that's just not true, that's not the case and to sort of refute both what the President said and also You know in some ways what bar intimated, even though he included that line in the report. So look, I think that those resonate for that but the fact about mother contradicts the president. Now you have competing not to sound bite, but also video bites presumably be under a network news tonight and another the coming days. So she was the other big blockbuster thing. That's what I said was a bomb show that occurred during the judiciary. Portion of the house today, and that is an exchange between by Mahler and had Lou. They began to about why it was the bomb Mahler chose not to invite the president with respect to attraction you believe I do. A lot of other people do that there's a lot of evidence in that section in Bob Mother in the view, well, we decide not to decide and it looked like

well, I was saying something new and different in really significant Emmy exchange was congressmen. Lou asked bomb The question I believe, resolve person. Looking at these facts To conclude, there are three elements of the crime of ocean justice have been met, and I like to ask you: reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump. Because of oil see opinion stadium. Canada dieting sitting. President correct That is correct. The fact that there are there is by the present were not carried out. Not a reason you did not indict. Donald Trump is because of the LLC opinion. Is that correct and mother said without hesitating. That is correct. That was kind of explosion in my ears, because then you're saying this whole question of whether someone is or is not above the law is being answered in a way because, while I was saying essentially but for the wealthy opinion, we would have indicted and the question was put

you didn't say a reasoned indict were one of the rare You didn't, I said. The reason you did not indict was because the Elsie opinion is correct, that correct that the bombshell to me as well- and I know he walked back later before his testimony began in house intelligence but I will say this as well. I think that there was a colonel of that in the initial conversation and questioning with representative NAD and Mahler, where it was, it was not as plus as it was when Representative Lou did it, but there was a, but for the US opinion you would have indicted and then after Lou wooden republican congresswoman tried to get mother offer that he he did. He stood his ground firstly I mean he he had a little, but so there at their like three instances during the first hearing where it felt to me that again Think representative Lou the only time he really set it completely and explicitly, but there are few times that it felt like Robert Mauler, was saying what I

we believe from having read the report, which is but for the Olc opinion, if Mahler could have invited the president, he would have indicted the present for obstruction of justice, and it was an incredible thing to hear Mahler Say that, and let me add one thing I understand more- took it back and we have to honour that. But there are few people in the world who I choose their words more carefully than Robert Mahler and again it was. Once it was a few times that this came back, he did He did they walk it back later and TAT. I want to characterize. It will be up and running, go to that right. So it seemed to me when he entered the Luke question directly and explicitly and its literally the central question for a lot of people, and he must have prepared on that question with any other question. Guess that heads must have been exploding at main justice. Billboards had must have an exploding doctrine it must have been exploding, all sorts of heads exploding. Those are the sounds you are hearing during during the hearing, and I expect intellivision television that clearly somebody's trying to fix this

I will be calling mother and it will see what happens and when I was asked the question. What are you looking forward to hearing were expecting from the tell hearing it was this: would there be a walk back and sure enough in his open? statement before the entire committee, the box before he gets to questioning, mother says I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr Lou by Mr Liese said, and I quote said, and I quote you didn't charged president because of the o Elsie opinion. That is not the correct. Way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the present committed a crime We did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime and without determine, and hence it is yet so you see that bomb Kaboom. I will put it out. Yes, it's not that This buying a walk back at the tissue back into this weird neverland of you didn't exonerate the guy but you're also not say he committed the crime

we ve talked about this? I don't think so. It's such a complicated space that Mahler put himself into in some ways and that the report falls into, which is, ok, I'm the conspiracy that he says you know not finding that the present engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians, but then when it comes to obstruction, he says I can't make a conclusion I can draw conclusions as to whether or not a crime was committed that wouldn't be fair and there's this oh Elsie opinion LLC Opinions number one. It wouldn't be fair number two. But by the way I'm not exonerating him and then he goes on to write essentially a prosecution memo which is here the three elements of obstruction of justice, and here is the evidence that we had to go to each of those three, elements, and there are some where I think the evidence is it fully there and they sort of her upright about saying you know we didn't. We didn't obtain evidence, for example, in a couple instances of I think cropped intent, but there are other places where they hit all three of the necessary elements and at least four or five them feel like places where you are. I might have approved in our prior careers, someone going for

to the grand jury to seek an indictment on those crimes, and so it sort of way he's in this really weird position. Any definite in Wanna make news today. He- if we want to go out of the four quarters the report, but it feels to me like his first answer, was the honest answer. There is my two important: if there had not been the walk back in assuming the walk back is not accepted. Is that the democratically to read in a basis that simple and easy to understand as to why they would proceed with impeachment, even though the Posner showing dropping support for continuing with impeachment, and that is if it was the case that Bob Modern, his team concluded that the present had committed a crime, but he, uniquely in the in the country, can be charged. Crime that provides the basis for saying will know pursues above the law, and we need to proceed here and that coming not from a partisan person, but that coming from a special council and Bob Mahler makes it different order of magnitude serious agreed and they seem to have lost it with the walk back from not quite sure how to play

what do you think? You are completely right? I think if it were left as it was, you have a very respected criminal prosecutor, who is the special council sang has committed a crime and then Congress in the position of sort of saying there is evidence of a crime that we are. Making that determination, Robert Mothers, Meda, and so it's really powerful. I do think things one is, I think it's accurate? I think he did walk it back and I understand why, but I think its consistent with how I read the report and I think, a lot of people read the report, the problem. Now, with the walk back, you can't go out and Table Robert Mahler said, but for the LLC opinion it would be a crime because he doesn't want to discuss But that way, so it loses its impact in an enormous way. Do you think that, as our speculated, that in between the two hearings but mother was contacted by Bill BAR or that his deputy earns every was contacted? Or do you think His own team internally deciding to walk about I'd like to know the answer that question I would ended and affects my thinking about the walk back, but the other thing that that this all relates to

but a news came out in the question that I had for a long time is: when did the special council really make the determination that, at the end of the day, the Aral Sea opinion would govern and there could be no Mr President, I was a recent in time was midway through and he basically said at the outset. They knew two years ago right there They would ultimately not be in addition to the president and the investigated anyway, if you personally if you knew in advance, you can indicted person in your criminal prosecutor was appoint wifi. Then, all this time and one about mothers answers was well. We'll see member says you can investigate somebody, including president. It doesn't preclude investigations precludes in and even a sealed indictment, and there may be other p

who were involved in the activity. Could conspirators and you gotta see whether where the road leads, but the other thing that that suggests is so it's not just done for not is that there is some other body who can hold a president accountable either a future prosecutor once he leaves office, and it was very clear about that. Those other been a bad moment for the President or Congress. Yes very much. So We should note that he he refused to sort of answer any question that went to their deliberative process internal to the investigation, but this was a great example where he argued I thought strongly in why the investigation continued and pointed out that they did in fact charge a number but in this investigation and a number of the president's associates as well, and so I thought that was a critical point. I also thought when mine with what you just noted, which is Mahler saying absolutely clearly. Yes, the president can be charged after he leaves office, which is that it's not immunity from being charged it just a temporary period time, which you cannot indeed the present, and it says in the report

and we ve talked about this, and I think a lot of other folks have talked about that. The best time to get evidence is close in time to win a potential crime has been committed. It's really hard to do it to wait till the present is out of office, whether its four years or eight years and, of course, statute of limitations may have run. But it was really impossible to wait to gather evidence into the investigation, and so I thought that was an important moment today will be back with more on by mothers. Testimony after this message stated, this episode was supported by a zebra polluter. It's important to surround herself was good people here in DC. That's obviously difficult. Finding qualified candidates takes a long time, but there's one place you can go were hiring simple, fast and smart that placed zip precluded. Our common slash, preach, zip recruiter, censure job to over one hundred leading job words, but they don't stop there.

Powerful matching technology, zip, recruiter scans? Thousands of Russia may find people with the right experience and invites them to apply then zip recruiter, analyzes each one and spotlights top candidates. So you never miss a great match. Zip recruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who pose sense if we could get a quality candidate through the sites within the first day and right now, a dip recruiter, dotcom, slash, pre, stay tuned listeners, contrived computer for free, zip, recruiter, dot com slashed preach that zip, precluded outcomes, lash, p r e t zipper. Could the smartest wait a higher? Take a step back here and go back into the substances from the back and forth. Wanting to happens in life is the creation of expectations. So unequal were just talking about to me. It significant in terms of perception that for a long time, lots and lots of people thought The same is also opinion, which was not as well known two years ago, as it is now that may be

it would be an indictment of president and it's a little weird in the universe, to know that the special council Herman two years ago. There would be no indictment, but the rest of the world thought that there could be, and so expectations raised were expectations that were raised whenever legitimately brought under control. So that's one example of yet another example of it. As we ve been told for months and months, and I've been saying that the militia testify, you ve been saying it publicly. If I so there's a lot to build up to this thing and in recent days, I was wondering, is gonna live up to the build up, and for other reasons, I think you know. Read it it that it wouldn't because by Mahler, less than was reluctant witness, and it is true, there's a report, but even this recently last night in this morning, lots of folks were saying: will this could be a huge blockbuster thing was a couple of points I think the key to life in some way. Having low expectations or at least managing your expectations, and so I very much think that the meat,

over below what the outcome of this would be an error rate even as recently as this morning, over saying this is absolutely gonna led to impeachment people. Ask me the other day in a well Mahler agree that tromp should be impeach while Mahler say Trump nowhere right no way, I would almost say that tromp committed a crime definitively no way, and so there was actions about whether or not the president had answered truthfully in the responses he given to smaller and more effectively said no answer his other example in exchange. That may be has a lot of import on the way was answered and maybe get walk back and people were speculating as we were leading

come to the studio or would it be walked back? That seems kind of extraordinary is a democratic representative Valdez things? Could you say Directorate Marlowe that the president was credible? Cannot answer that question director Merlaison it fair to say that the present has written answers were not only inadequate, an incomplete, because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answer show that he wasn't always been truthful. There would say joy generally, Director Miller is one thing for the president to lie to the American people about Joe Investigation fancy claiming that you found no collusion and no obstruction, but is something replies altogether. I would say, generally called transcript, seems to suggest he was basically saying here. The president, like the president, lied in written answers to this the council's office, but then you think about how other parts of the testimony went today is a quite that precise,

I would say, general. I was a generally what he said that a few times now she said, I would say, generally few times were people or China pin him down to speak the things in the report- and he got two four hundred plus page report and he wouldn't have the specific site in front of them inside he was trying to basically sailor. Generally, I agree with what you're saying I found not to be really damning, for, president and a really important moment today, because she didn't want to go into too much detail of who didn't agree to testify. But it's part of the report that the president did not agree to testify in that they made numerous efforts, and so that's a moment where, beyond the answers being incomplete, untruthful I mean it's sort of like. Will the president would answer if your questions, the obstruction questions, would only answer questions on conspiracy and by the way, the answers he gave you mallard entails but remember there I don't remember I I know and and smaller saying generally, yet we didn't find it to be complete or truthful. That's a big deal and its

again remembered this is the present United States who refuse to walk into an interview who filed written answers and then What those written answers the special council did not believe that the president was forthright. That is hugely important, as we think about now. What's on so much did in some ways today. I think exactly what you and I would have expected him to do what I would have liked for him to have done, which, if I were honest about this, I knew you wouldn't do it. But I would have liked more of a conversation about the president not testify. And not being subpoenaed to testify in mother went gave us a lot. But they're in saying? There's a balance between looking at the information that you of any amount of time it takes to go through litigating a subpoena against the president. But I would have liked to have heard more about that. The fact that Don Junior would testify did not provide information. More would answer those questions and that's in keeping with the letter that the Department of Justice just sent saying don't talk about third parties

been charged, I think Mahler. I don't know whether he was self constraining or each felt constrained by the department letter, but he was very cautious as a witness to talk about this decision not to pursue compelling Tolstoy the present per second something I was really struck by a yes, have always believed that the Bob Mahler imposed a clock self, he wanted to get this thing done this quickly as possible to avoid criticism and also his better things into a life. Then do this and he said in his opening statement. Among other things, that one of his goals was that the investigation quote would not last a day longer than necessary. Anyone explain that today, as you mentioned, you don't know how long it takes to get through the courts, incompatible testimony and, as I have often said, I'm in a minority here for defending on this decision. If you started to get into the next year to the next summer, point twenty

Can the election and holding everything else in abeyance? No report on the conspiracy aspects of another aspect of obstruction to try to get the present to be compelled to testify. Then you, I think, running up against a very, very, very serious barrier and clock because it looks much much more political and we have enough to eat. You maintain this cloud over the country and over the presidency long period of time and the other way thing about it is, it sounds like you have enough. He won't say it because you bending over backwards to be the president because of what he interpret the policy into allow or not allow, but you don't see the testimony of the person. If you think you have enough- and I think that's what's going on Here- well, let let's, let's parsons out just a little bit in the report. It basically says there is a question of timing and we felt we had sufficient evidence an assessment. So I think to your point of there was evidence there. I agree. Yes, there is evidence there and there's a considerable amount of evidence. The two places I would sort of

go back and forth. Maybe a little bit with you on to dig deeper is that obstruction is one of those crimes where in and really matters, and so one of the three elements of the crime. The first is: there's an obstructive act. The second is that there is an excess to an official proceeding, a connection to official preceding like a grand jury or hearing, and the third is corrupt, cropped intent, and so I think, when intent is as much of an issue as it is with something like of structure, and it is incredibly important when you can get access to someone's testimony to get access to their testimony. So I personally would like Mauler to have interviewed the president also, I think, the question of thoroughness. When you're doing these types of investigations of doubting eyes and crossing tease, I don't think I've ever asked you this before. I really wonder today, if, whether it's more than just the bounds of these two things, it's also the fact that he knows under the LLC opinion that he's not gonna, indict him exactly. I think the total-

played in right, because at the end of the day you have a certain amount of evidence, you're worried about the timing and then even if you got this other evidence, in other words, interview- you're not going anywhere, but it takes a year or take six months. It gets out other decreased it's. What I do is exercised more social Europe, the special council and you gather your team It also among your team and you sexual. What should we do about compelling since testimony and I've run this scenario through my own head in your team says: well, we really want to get it because crept antennas, important one. What's inside the person's head, a both for their benefit and for the benefit of thoroughness, of the investigation, and then you would ask, I think her way through the timing. Is

saying, I don't know cause it's. It's over speculative will go the district court and maybe I'll take some very time months, maybe weeks only but probably months mill appeal at no go up, and if you would ask the question which I would know what's the possibility that this reaches ahead and we are in a position to take the testimony, the president in Say thirteen months or fourteen months in September or October of a re election year. And lets say your team said: look we can't promise, we don't know it could be. It could be on the eve of the election. I ve also as the question of your team. Can we put the report out in bits and pieces so so even the stuff has to be on hold until we get this decision from the court about compelling testimony. Can we put out the conspiracy stuff? Absolutely not. You couldn't do that right and so not not overly defend the decision, I'm just thinking if Ireland that spot there's no good result.

And I agree that there is no good result, particularly because I think you're right, you were taken. There rose. You have taken the risk of have this, reach ahead. Eve of an election when the whole issue here is that the president thinks it's a witch hunt. Alot of folks think it's taking too long and your otherwise imagine the following your otherwise kind of done, as evidenced by the rest of Europe. The only thing that you really don't have is a testimony to president. Do you hold everything frozen for another entertaining the witness well set apart gas into the rules. The federalism evidence not apply. Those include Pakistan that a record in Washington DC look. I think it's a really great question and a really look people can. Agree about this in in a very real way he hears where and I want to agree one one part very short,

with you, which is that I think that you cannot come close to an election and the present of the United States is incredibly lucky that Robert Mahler was the special council, because we side, even Jim call me who you know is a is- was a well rigour, prosecutor for many years call me broke when I would argue, are whether their official rule, or formal rules or informal rules, but by talking about investigations within a close period of time to an election. You just don't do it so Robert Mauler is a man of integrity was not gonna, come close to the election, and I agree one hundred percent with it so you're right that there was a being issue were Mahler could have come up or he could have actually work? this scenario even then you just outlined would be. He goes eight months. He realizes he's coming close to the election, and then he says up forget it. No, he gives that which is far worse. Once you go down that path, that's the thing! Once you go down that path, then you gotta, everything up and get it to go all the way here in the courts and what, if he started early

though, because I think the one thing I would question in your sort of analysis is that your presuming, ok, Mahler wait a year. He contain these negotiations, which were pretty clear from all of us sort of looking from the outside early on the president was not to walk in on ass, letting you they could be could have sought to compel it is there waiting a year on somebody months ago for three months and then say: look we're gonna issue you subpoena, but there's a conundrum there too and again I remember exactly what was accomplished by what particular date and time, but, generally speaking, the other traditional way you go about doing these things for good reason, could it makes sense and its effective? Is you don't get the testimony from the principal person you're looking at until the abbot until the end up better. I know you check your boxes. You crosser teased your eyes. So, on the one hand, you don't wanna know front love that,

how you do things normally. On the other hand, you have this me up and I thought they were trying to walk out balance actually cause. They started the commission clearly pretty early before the investigation. There are still a lot of people who will from public information they are probably still investigating set was clear. They were trying to start that conversation without you know, understanding it might take a while acknowledging this does a lot of things to keep in mind as we're gonna be assessed. Bob Mother. How he would doing this. We should assess his performance today in a moment in question people have about. It but whether you like it or not, to understand the psychological, you know approach that legal, slash, psychological is clearly he did a lot of things it done, one way or different way, based on urgency and time. For example, we talk about this before he decided to five off a bunch of investigations and a bunch of cases to other offs, you don't have to do that we have got. It cannot only be ass. All these things. You have to view through the prism of. Maybe it's not correct, or maybe

overdone, but he will but to get out of this thing as quickly as possible and by your two he wanted to be done. I think it's also consistent with who he is dead. He obviously new there. Is a political football every day and that if this was a huge american issue, and so look, I give him so much credit for the way he has this investigation and again I actually dont think that this is as clear cut. His people make seem one way or the other, and let me say one other thing, which is that in criminal prosecutions you know, I think it would be very helpful for the nation to have had the president had to speak about what he was doing and why and have answered Marge questions. But I also know we put a lot of hope on a criminal investigation in a way that, I have to say, is not always fair, and so you know Bob Mahler did the right thing. Arguably by the investigation. It doesn't get to the answer that I I very much would have liked, which is that the present had to answer a question,

sound obstruction of journalist. A hundred percent in some ways were falling into a trap and which is assessing by mothers. Conduct were lawyers. That's when we do in former prosecutors in your assessing demonstrated that what the President have done right, a great. No, if you should tangible lightly and he should want like couldn't, walked in people walking them that using the Goshen, but they want them. But the fact that the president and walk in and Donald Trump Junior didn't walk in mean if you- and I are prosecuting a case- and we say: hey- you wanna community, some people say no you're take away. Is they want to talk to? You it can be great lawyering to basically say my kind. Is coming and because you don't want to give the government information to help them make the case, but it still it. It says something The present United States would not actually take a lawful request, even though isn't a subpoena from the special council to answer questions in particular because in these mistakes have been made before the Martha Stewart

others here, there's certain people who not ordinary citizens, either public officials or their famous in some way, or they have a business and terms. They overrule their lawyers and cautious lawyers will say based on what the facts are: dont go and talk to the process. Because the one thing they will get you in trouble is lying and you can be charged with obstruction so you say to the client: don't do this, but some clients with his mother suitor. Someone else has. I can't take the reputational loss of looking like I'm guilty and looking like I'm running away from something- and you would have thought, I that's what I would like to present my knowledge or not drove out it's true. It's a great point because it sort of fell to me. They fell to me as this was on going like how does he stay as a present of United States and not be willing to answer questions about whether tried to stop an investigation into whether he conspired with the russian government to interfere. Election and it's hard to understand that the Martha Stewart examples a great example. So, while on the subject of no second guessing as archer pundits from prosecutors, saga

We did it and we have some questions from listeners and viewers retweet from assiduous rabbit. Hashtag ass preach mother I'm seeing on TV is at the mother? You know he seems what we're isn't that he's been portrayed and we got an email from LISA Catherine uses. Your pre is an obvious tee. That the special investigators responsibility together with natural aging process, has taken a toll on Mr Mahler. Well, first, nice had taken it I made no may lead to the end of the year, and today I can really conductors parkers. Today much less amount to a bunch of representatives. Look I've I've done I've, never done congressional testimony. I've done testimony of state aid, New Jersey before the state legislature, and it's tough and I've never done five hours, but I can tell you that it is growling. Mother was

really hard, not to say a lot and that's an effort. I think too, to carefully choose his words and to be really scrupulous about what he said and didn't say. I also feel like There were times and we will come to the way that the hearing was conducted, but I was really frustrated parts of the morning listening to- and I said this before people interrupt him letting him answer there were some yelling, it not listening, and so I sort of when he was asked really clear, factual questions. He did a pretty good of answering those. There was a lie a word salad this morning, and it wasn't word salad on everything So a lot of speechifying where people had very particular things they were. China pin me

our chill and he did a lot of the will. You repeat the question: what are you talking about, and you know that it certainly didn't it came across in some instances as halting or as not as confident as you might expect him to be, but he was being out some pretty complex things where people were trying to make political points, and I think he was hesitant again to let people pay him. The coroner, so it wasn't lucky eating go in there to be cedar or to be the person who was sort of no making news today and I think he definitely came across as understated not answering my question: would he hasn't? He said they walked back and forth. My asia that put their broke through is look at different. Look that want to quit, That I read was: is that the mother, you know and in many Asia he's the malaria, first round. I was with a panel people on Non CNN and they seem taken aback when he began answering questions. No, no, yes, you don't see.

I wouldn't be surprised at all buster here and that so we are that's the mother. I know the modern, also prisoners you describe be the centre of attention who doesn't want to be embroiled in political controversy? He doesn't want allow himself to be used politically in adds, which is why he made a deal. They wouldn't have. Portions of the Mulder report to all that yeah, that's the mother, I know your frankly, if you say was, he is ass, sharp and quick and forceful and dominant, as I have seen him be no ten twelve fourteen years ago, That's, because this is an area in which he was especially reluctant to testify because All those other hearings combined did not get the attention. Eighty eight times, I think it has to find, did not get the attention that today was gonna, get and did not have the significance of today yeah. So I saw my mother who is trying not to be political who does not look political. We try to do the right thing,

Who's trying to obey the guidelines of the department is trying to be true to the report is trying to get the job done. I'm a thankless job that he had both doing the report. During the investigation and also define and is he a sprightly as he was no that that that's fair one thing I would say about the dominant question. It was interesting to me, particularly the fur half of the morning hearing before the Judiciary Committee, there were number of places where I thought it was pretty deferential, and I thought I expected him to be alive. But more feisty in defending the report and defending his team and pushing back on some of the things that were coming, and I really do having seen by smaller, testified before red transcripts, and what not I I expect expected him, knowing that he would be reticent and very careful in choosing his words expect him to be more forceful in some things after the break, though he came back

I don't know if you feel the same way he fell on coffee here, but maybe some people of his team is good said. Look, you notice is untrue and you're trying so hard to not be political you're like you're, almost decent Europe, not in their saying hey, wait a minute. My team, I thought it was a great moment when he was questioned the members of his team and and how many people on his senior Democrats or speak for a second to the iron practices. We start, to hire those individuals echoed do the job back. Ok, I've been in this business for almost twenty five years. Twenty five years I have not had occasion, wants to ask somebody about their police, nickel affiliation. It is not done what I care about is that the ability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity I've never in my entire career ass, a single lawyer, I've hired what their political party was, and here's what fascinating about

previous to stop on that from it. Neither of eye, and probably neither no. We are not allowed to that's one of the most prominent trouble with especially the investigation that I hope led back in two thousand: seven, that's a nano, but what Mason is it's like it would never have even occurred to Mahler that people would not have accepted that the fourteen people, who were already at the United States, a farmer justice that they were not politically gets just beyond his comprehension, the people politicize his team in the way that it's happened in that it was. There were some great moments today where he was like. Look, I stand by the integrity of the report and my team and I think he needed to, that- and I wish, even in the beginning of the Judiciary Committee frankly, that he done that in a stronger way. What would you think of how he hailed questions about the FBI agent Peter struck, who had with one with whom he was every relationship? Lisa page that said negative things about the present how many years as a one point did, you know,

you hired Peter struck onto the team that he hated the president and by mother said I did not, which is interesting cause you don't seem to push back the premise of the hatred which I think is hard to push back. I think pediatric was produced by the press He tried to finish answering by saying and that's when we reassigned him. He and decide to give us where the lecture in law, like you- and I have done here and explain why in ordinary universe to civilians, just because I'm not condone it, but just because one member of a team has done things at that exhibit bias. It means that the miscreant goes free there.

Their safeguards for that? In the end, the Evans has a stand up on its own and whose remove pretty early, I mean he was moved adding almost a year close to a year and a half before the final report was issued an it's interesting to me that very few Republicans, if any out how to go back to the whole transcript quibble with the actual facts that are shown in the report, as opposed to these other issues. Right ass, you re point I think, on that text. Messages to he said you know the first thing he learned about the text messages. It does strike me that that that's one of those painful things where, if you're Robert Mahler he's the least political guy, he does not want to be part of this political sort of Rugby Scram, which of course, he's part of because he's the special council and then you have to people in your team who have these political statements come out. It's gotta be painful for someone like Mahler, because you know essentially he he gave the Republicans. We should talk about some of the criticisms today, but there's fodder to argue that, there's by

yes, where Mahler again was quick to say, like I've, never ass, any one, their political leanings. It's not it's not. Why pick these people? These are fine men and women, but it gives it give something to hit him on. I still have some questions that I dont think were asked an enormous and while I'm your sneeze and miss something and are not the most important things not central to the ultimate conclusions about the capability, the president, but I wanted to know from Mahler how we about the idea that rod roses Dinah former deputy director general, was simultaneously a witness in the obstruction case but also when the decision makers, with respect to the whole investigation and oversight.

That was asked. No, there were a number of areas that I dont have more would have answered them, but I would have liked them to have covered with him and in particular I think, they're, worse stuff related to the russian government and the interference with the election. I would have liked to have seen them spend more time covering particularly in the intelligence hearing. So what do you think we go from here? It is in the way that some people do it. But do you think- and here you can answer it yet, but it is what it is maybe disappointed. Some people might be near satisfied with the answer, but based on how to day went, If one of the purposes was, I think actually Miller was asses knows. No. I'm trade when the chairman was asked is the purpose of today's hearing to jumpstart impeachment or something like that, and probably when the purposes was. I agree with those folks who say that a good predicate was laid down for calling other people with computers are not like,

on began and others, but after today does impeachment become more or less likely. So I want to start by saying that every time we make predictions, every time I made prediction only to their often wrong. So I wonder I wanna cabin that this thing I feel about the way congresses handle. This is I'm, I'm not a fan and just to be really forthright about a way to go on the way. I'm I'm. I know it's not an easy thing to do to bashing I'm yours, I'm not a fan Milgram boldly says: she's, not a fan of the way Congress did something. Well, here's what I think has happened. Mahler come with her report in March, the gets released not long after and there's been a lot hand, wringing and a lot of sort of putting their finger in the air to see you where's the public and, I think, a real hesitation to have this conversation. To is that the most significant conversation that we seem publicly about the report and

Robert Mothers findings in what happened, and so they waited a long time, and I agree with you, clearly down Mcgann needs to testify. I think our lot affair motions for hope, picks and many, many others, and so what I like all those folks to be called the answered. Yes, but there is a point at which we are getting closer and closer to having a democratic and mean of the present will be the republican nominee for In it that there will be a democratic nominee before you know it and so were in the presidential election season, and so I don't think it's likely that we're gonna see impeachment into the middle of locally yes, I think so near me. My view is, if you separate out the substance from the theatre, the theater was not conducive to what some bull wanted. There are no real huge aha moment. There are a couple of big things you talked about, one of which was walked back and mostly people who believed thing before believe the same thing. Now it's showpiece. I sat in their opinion

What we learned today from Mahler we knew in April from the report, and so There wasn't a lot that was near us furthermore, we are discussing before about how bout mother performing this, I think about doing this right. We are immersed in the actual hearing in watching the things, and I have not had a chance to see a lot of reaction just intermittently very quickly, and there are people who saying many of them, but not all of them, who have a vested interest in today being a disaster for the Democrats who are calling the debacle calling it a disaster? I dont think that I just I wonder if wants to, if it's a little, if it's a little bit laid down the road, when there has been a lot of the people who are saying that, based on the substance was no damage done that I could see to the conclusions. To the integrity of the investigation. Anything of substance remained intact. In fact, I think was strengthened in many ways because you

the demeanor of Robert Mother, as is not being a guy hyper partisan, are trying to get someone so they're basing that all on their perception of the quality of by motives perform some may be, how sharp he was. No quickie was in the moment, and I get that, but that means that those people are focusing on the address rather than substance. Yet the substance was was very strong. This substance has been strong since the report came out. And I think you know, Congress has made a decision that I don't agree with this sort of stand back and do these sort of small pieces

instead of having impeachment hearings and figuring out to the president engaging conduct that constitutes removable, removable fence, and so I just my feeling is that at this point a member Congress is leaving this week, and so it will have a chance to talk about this. I think going forward on CAFE insider, but my MIKE expectation is that the reaction to this is not gonna, be it's not gonna, be an explosion of people asking for impeachment and a little bit, maybe the Intel committees, hearing, colourless attention could later in the day and people already form their impressions of what was going on today based on the early putting in a people is impatient, it's a lot of ours, of hearings to watch, but that was really powerful stuff in the entire committee hearing.

And in a way, a reinforcement of this idea that we're not pay enough attention to that. There was a as molecules putting it sweeping and systematic interference in our election, and are we spending enough time thinking about twenty twenty, always pain of time, figuring out how to prevent that kind of thing Have you not just with respect to Russia or some other country as well in Robert Miller, said it is. It is happening as we speak for twenty twenty one of them that mauler said today that I found so important and chilling was that smaller the man who oversaw the transformation of the FBI after nine eleven that he said in his entire career, that this is one of the greatest challenges to democracy that has ever seen. That is unbelievable statement from someone like Robert Mahler, who is the director of the FBI for twelve years, oversaw the Pope, the post, nine eleven changes in the federal government, and so it really is, even today I think you're

there is time spent on in an intelligence committee, but there needs to be more time spent on it for all of us, because it matters so greatly Charcot Lulli, causing one final word lease one final thing in this discussion about by Mahler who are, I have deep, deep respect for and whatever you think about how we conducted investigation where we think about how we did today, he didn't eat any this. He had already proved himself enough and approve. He did a thankless job, which probably appears more thankless today than it ever has before and he's not young man, and it is probably the case. Someone said this earlier today in a kind of struck. Me is probably the case that we will not again hereby mother speak in Congress or at a press conference or from a podium in any way, shape or form again.

Here. I agree with that. I am, I think we owe him a great debt of gratitude for what he's done here and I think the president does to your people can forget the the posture of the president and his people, whether their folks, like parliament, ASCII Paul metaphor to Roger Stone or No one else is to destroy anyone who dares to say the president did something wrong, and the fact is that there are lots of other people who have good records and are formidable project who could have been appoint a special council and it would be a lot worse for the present now get. I get that they have destroy. Whoever took that job, and in this case it was Bob smaller but in many ways trumpet his ally should think. You're lucky stars: it was someone as fares him, who is getting grief for having bent over backwards to accept the will see opinion to such a degree that he won't even states something. That is

apparent to the rest of us yeah. What's amazing, when you think about it, is that in this incredibly politicize world robber moral- and today we sought went out of his way not to be for a call, and I think, with this, entire investigation was China. Do it I'm straight by the book? that is its it's a creditor institutions, it's a credit to him with his caveat or reactions in, and we like bring them to you right away, we're taking this literally having watch the hearings all day and let a few minutes elapsed before we came up in the studio we have a lot more to say about it with the benefit of some sleep at some relation on the insider podcast. On Monday, and if you haven't you sign up for that past capita come slash insider, What are you talking about mothers testimony and in fact we do to listen to them.

If our conversation become a member of the catholic insider Community, a cafe de camp, Slash insider members get act, the full episodes of the insider podcast bonus material from stay tuned and more, in addition to the rest of today's discussion, and then I will have more to talk about on Mondays episode of Catholic insider worth each week we break headlines and make sense of what happened to capital. Slash insider and become a member that Cathay dot com slashed inside does many of you have already joined the community. Thank you for your support. Oh, that's it for this special Mahler episode of statehood, thanks again to my guest and Mildred. Stay tuned, presented by CAFE the executor producers, tomorrow supper the senior producer his errand, Jordan and the cap. Eighteen, if Carl appearing Julia Doyle tell them Lord DNA Bastardy and justifies our music is by Andrew Dust

prepare our stated folks. Very recently launched something to help you keep on top of today's new cycle. It's a newsletter, we can use it analysis of politically charged legal matters. The cafe brief site to stay and formed a cafe dot com. Slash brief! That's cafe: dot com, slash grief.