Welcome to the mccarthy report pot guess where I rich Larry discuss what they any mccarthy the latest legal and national security issues this week, what else the ongoing fight? Over January six, you are listening to a national view, cod cast of summaries, you not already fallen assent stream, a service you can find us everywhere from spot. If I too, I tunes and please give this pot gettin, Andy mccarthy- the glowing indeed gushing five star reviews they deserve on itunes. Now, without further ado, I welcome to this very point. The cast through the miracle zoom, none other than Andy Mccarthy, richard warrior good andy. How are you happy, superbowl yay, looking forward to the big game? I am of your lambs. Are you picking the rams now? I think the I think I think.

bengals are gonna win and I think they're going to win a lot easier than wow. When people are old, yeah or the anemic I'm taking the bengals, I don't have much justification for it, except for borrows better quarterback, so I'm worried by eight I'm with nazi aided a couple weeks ago, got always go to bed accorded that yeah and the thing going on here, though, is: I think that taylor is a better coach than Mcvay, which is interesting, because taylor worked for mcvay back in in twenty nineteen, he was the one that when Goff was the quarterback and taylor, was the young up and coming coach in the end now he came on to make staff. Even I think it's interesting. I wonder if we better had one like this before. very, is only thirty six entail. Is thirty. Eight we probably never had we ve got players in the legal younger than the two guys in today.

I say and he's and he's been at it a little while yeah I'm just. This is like his second trip to the super bowl he's been in the playoffs a lot, but I just think I'm really impressed with but they ve done with Cincinnati. I think be underrated thing in the game is the bangles defects. Everybody talks about the rams defence, but the bangles have a really good defence and they shut down kansas city, which nobody has been able to do in Kansas city for a whole, half and plus some overtime and and held them to three points. New great story at the bengals can can pull it off.

So let's talk about not so great stories. We got a lot of january sixth action. Last week we get this rnc sensor or censure resolution against Adam kinzer and Liz Cheney. We both have criticisms of of them, which we'll discuss in a moment we have criticisms of them which what little discussion a moment, but first of all, it's just focus on the censure which you know as Mcconnell pointed out, not the rnc, his role, then, on top of it it's at least poorly worded. So that thing has gotten a lot of attention. Is this phrase legitimate democrat?

it's a legitimate political discourse which obviously does not encompass your storming that the capital, but they say well we're talking about the rally before and I know how convincing you find that but anyway, which which make the censure well first of all and as far as the the way that it's worded, which, as you point out your ronna mcdaniel, is, is now backpedaling wildly to say that it doesn't say what it says, or at least it didn't mean what it says. You have to wonder. Rich, I mean who the hell is reading this stuff.

before they publicized that nobody looked at that and said moon. This might be a problem and they say what they just forever is worth what the the rnc pro se is. We don't write this. You know we didn't sit down in the headquarters in DC dc and write this. It's the members who write it and the draftsmanship might might be a little lacking now. Well, if your, if your job is to like help the forty win elections, which is what I understood their job, was, you would think that you wouldn't want something like republican, going out on a piece of paper that that had that in there, but what they say is that they criticise cheney and kensington for for joining a democratic, led persecution is the word they use of legitimate political protest. So

You know they're talking, I think the best spin on it is they're talking about and the cases that the justice department has brought that have gotten criticism, because the you don't d, o J, scorched the earth to get her to bring in a lot of people who ordinarily wouldn't be charged with something like this weren't charged in the left wing rioting alone were charged with monitoring and parading and very minor offences. The other thing they shift to all the time is the people who are being held without bale, of which there are No, I want to say is probably about sixty, but I dont know exactly how many there, or is it because it shifts from time to time. and I must say, I've looked into some of that stuff. In the last few days,. And some of it is pretty disturbingly, for example,

Bearing how who is- I don't know she still, the chief judge in the district but she's one of the district judge, Ah, she was basically pat lay he's, protege on the senate, judiciary committee for years very partisan democrat and a very progressive judge, as you would expect, there was a case that was reported on in the last week or so where She kept a guy in custody because he's a member of the proud boys and she said that, because, as a member of the proud boys,

was no condition or combination of conditions that the the court could find that he would not be a danger to the community if he were let out now rich. I had guys who are members of the game and bienal family who got let out on bail on the understanding that you know their work conditions and monitoring conditions that you could could make. That would satisfy the court that the guy would not threaten witnesses threaten the community at large, etc. So the idea that these guys think it out on bail. I know we ve talked about this before I always feel like. I have the preface this would work with this sum caviar, and that is when we say people should be led out on bail without presumptive Lee. Bail should be available when you get arrested, we're not saying that's, not saying you're innocent. It's not saying that not going to be convicted the trial. What it saying is this business,

This is a presumption of innocence and the b constitutional presumption. It doesn't require bail people a wrong when they think the bill of rights requires bail doesn't, but it does, You know what it says is barely set. It has to be reasonable and what the state you'd say- is that you get bail unless the government can show by some convincing evidence that you are either a risk of fly or a danger to the community, meaning there's no combination conditions, no financial stuff.

He passed. It know what the monitoring other than keeping you in jail that will satisfy the court that you'll show up for your poor hearings and that you won't intimidate. People will be a danger to the community. If you get out on that standard, I don't see that in any of these cases, people shouldn't get out and look up. I would be open to entertaining I'm somebody who was salted a police officer and his on tape. Doing it should not get out on bail, because if you saw the cop, that's a good that it's a fair inference from that if you're gonna assault the security personnel the society that you were gonna be a danger to the society. If you get out, I could understand that, but I can't understand it, but it by your mere membership in an organization. Thus, the organizations like Al Qaeda,

You know, there's no evidence that the proud boys around committing acts of terror. As I know, that's the that's the political narrative I am not here to be an apologist for the proud boys. I'm just saying I don't see keeping people in jail over that. So I do think that there's an argument that these people are being treated as a lower caste on a a two tiered justice system, and that and we've said this- I've said it a million times. It has been one set of rules, for you know, left wing, radical violence and a different set for these people and that's wrong. My my default position on that for what it's worth is that that means that we should be more aggressive going after the left wing political violence, not that we should route. We should close our eyes to the rest of it and act like there being persecuted on to me even handed means prosecute both in the map. It you don't. So I do think that there is something to be said for that, but that being said it, it's not only

this area you see about it. You know ordinary. citizens engaging legitimate, legitimate political discourse which anybody who watch the video knows. But that's not what this was even if there were some people who were just holding signs or were doing whatever they were doing. There were over. One hundred cops were assaulted, there were some were seriously hurt I end. We signal the videos, so there is bad, but the other thing is rich. You know You re either you're, either with or against political violence. You know, there's not middle ground when it comes to political violence and how on earth did them? The republican national committee think it was a good idea to put a stop.

I know they put them on the side of the political violence that I mean I just I can't even wrap my head around it. So let's get to cheney and kinsler. So there are very sincere about this they're very passionate about it. They think party's gonna total wrong direction. They aren't he wrote. Such resolution is obviously evidence for for for their case, but how, in your view, have they they gone wrong by participate?

getting just the mere fact of it or the way. They've participated on this committee. I have one criticism of liz and and kinsey her, and I I guess I should preface this by saying I think they're essentially right. I think that the porting does need to distance itself from trump every day that it doesn't is a is a disaster and I'm not it. This isn't. As as people know, I wrote for our magazine the piece endorsing in trump's reelection. I thought that you know he should be reelected. I am. I am, I obviously not a notorious and

the trapper. But you know, I think, the capital riots of not only the capital riot, but everything that led up to it, which, to my mind in many ways, is as bad and in some ways worse than what went on in the capital riot in terms of undermining the election and the and the constitutional prison provisions under which the election supposed to take place. And so I you know, I'm I'm not a I'm, not a rabid, anti trump or I'm trying to be entirely practical about this, and I am very, very sympathetic and have been to the suit what I regard as the Mcconnell Mccourt.

we in the house and many other senior republicans who in trying to grapple with this difficult problem in the trunk problem, is a very difficult problem because of the sport that he still has it with the base that unfortunately intimidates a lot of republican office holders. Their way of dealing with it, which I thought was the prudent way of dealing with it- is to trial ignore it to the extent that you can don't embrace trump and hope that we move on to other issues and deal and dealing with people who deal with other issues, and they thought- and I was inclined to think that those in particular kissing her as well, but I think he's got the profile that that listens was wrong. To be obsessive about this until I bring it while the time make it like her singular issue is its trunk to the point where she looks like he's manic about trump.

But as time is going on, I I have a hard time criticising lives for being obsessive when trump won't. Let things go just a week ago, we are talking about pardoning the capital rioters, your hand and now- courage and more demonstrations It only render very few very few pardon threats. He has actually followed through. I beg your pardon. Somebody does and you know, how can you help me- you criticise, lose the being obsessive when its trample won't let the skull I mean trump basically makes less necessary. What losers basically saying is we have to confront this problem To my mind, here's the problem- and I am completely convinced about this- Trunk and when the nomination- and he can

not when a national election. I think, if, if truck work to get the nomination, which I hope people come to their senses and decide that elect ability is the mother is a very important aspect wallace, no matter how bad biden is, if Biden is the the candidate which I assume he will be in twenty twenty four, I think I know I'm not sure the way the country is any more, but you could get a gun. Old, water or mcgovern were mondeo style landslide, but I am very confident that trunk would lose a lot worse than became did in two thousand and eight, and I keep pointing out to people that trumps high water mark was when he miraculously one the twenty sixteen election and, on that occasion, fifth

if four percent of the country voted against him, and that was before his tumultuous term and it was before the capitol riot and all the nonsense that went on after it. If he runs as a national candidate he's, gonna get killed and the parties gonna get killed so the catastrophe, However, this is not about like. Let me sit here and condemn all the terrible things. Trump is done. This is just the flooding reality that he could very well win or parties nomination. My party's nomination and he'll get drugged and he'll take the rest of the forty down with them. So with these, what I think lives is due mainly trying to do is not only say we need to be on the side of the constitution and lawfulness the rule of law and what went on here is wrong, but also, if you tie your fate to this guy, we're consigning the country to you,

izmir of woke, progressive governance and when that's unacceptable, so I have a hard time being critical of them over that here's, my criticism of of liz and kinsey or for what it's worth and I think they pulled the rug out from under Mccarthy on the formulation of the january six committee. Policy outrages, outrageously, did not allow mccarthy his choices to sit on the committee and the claim that it would have been inappropriate to have jordan and banks on the committee because the big pro trappers under circumstances where. Shell of the committee benny Thompson.

personally sue drunk under the ku klux klan act after january. Sixth raskin and schiff ran impeachment against trump and we're like the biggest trump deranged opponents of an on the democratic side of trump throughout the administration and Raskin. In twenty, sixteen objected to the counting of electoral votes for trump. Which is exactly what they say is what what instigated this office. So I'm not saying that those guys need to be removed a merry, saying that that bennie thompson shouldn't be the chairman. The Democrats have the majority they get to see who they want, and everybody in life knows that this is not a court proceeding. This is a this. Is a congressional

Well to me: it's political by nature. No one expects it to be otherwise, but you can't credibly take the position that it's okay for the legitimacy and objectivity of the investigation for those democrats to be on the committee. But Jordan banks can't be on the committee and I wouldn't put jordan and banks on the committee. But look it was Mccarthy's choice and it was his prerogative to do it so for Pelosi to turn around and say he can't have the people that he wants on the committee at At that point, I think it was appropriate. I I don't. I'm not sure that this is going to turn out to have been a smart move by mccarthy, because it left him without any allies on the committee, but his

the he decided- and I think this is defensible to say all right. Well, if we can take our own members we're pulling out we're not going to participate in the committee. So at that point he's still negotiating with policy, and he knows that policy wants desperately want republican participation on the committee because she wants it or even though she controlling it, she It's the legitimacy sex. She needs to have some republican input, so she hand picks cheney and cleansing her, and at that point I think cheney and kinsler could have said we're not going to allow ourselves to be used as a pillow, the football this lie. We don't agree with what mccarthy's done. We think the committee's very important, but we're not going to allow ourselves to be used like this than and selected by the democratic. How speaker to sit on this committee, which is obviously already raised against stood against trump.

So my criticism of them is, I think, Mccarthy might have been able to negotiate with policy a better january six committee, with with the yellow, more politically legitimate one. and because of the way they decided that. their desire to to be on the train. Investigation was more important than mccarthy's ability, as the republican leader to negotiate a better committee. I think that was wrong on their part and I think it really just stars the committee, because the way the committee currently bans half the country, it will dismiss it no matter. I know lay says that I take visitor word on this, that you know they are looking at this factually they're gonna delivery. That you know that factual and it's gonna have our support and testimony in documents in all. I believe that I also think tat.

countries gonna say you guys were in the tank against trunk so. Why should we even bother with this so anti? Let's talk a little bit more about the committee and Ashton of it's legitimacy, political legitimacy it has and the legal legitimacy and how there it may have gotten over excuse that I, I think, rich, that I are- and I want to preface this because I don't feel like I'm doing lot of prefacing tonight, but I don't want to be misunderstood on this and the committee report of the committee's investigation, which is an important pork, is unconstitutional,

now, I'm going to explain that in a second. But I want to be understood. I am not saying the committee is unconstitutional, I'm not saying that it doesn't have proper legislative purposes. The dc circuit court of appeals just issued a ruling about a month ago, rejecting trump's privilege plans and they laid out the different legislative purposes better proper that the committee has congresses. Ability to investigate constitution away is dependent on its having proper legislative purposes. Does not question the committee has that they could be doing an investigation, for example. To see. Does the electoral counteract need to be wary What do we need to do something about the voting machines, safety or you're? A million state certification procedures security? in the capital. There's a lot of things. Congress would legislate on here, and the committee's investigation is very relevant to all that. What it can committee of congress is not allowed to do is conducted

in investigation under our system, separation of powers, police powers, criminal investigations, our executive powers, a committee of Congress- does not have the power to do a quick. It's not a prosecutor, it's not a grand jury, it doesn't have the authority to do that and if it does that it's acting in an unconstitutional manner, and there is no doubt that the committee is conducting a criminal investigation of tromp liz chain, he has said it expressly. She said you know. Basically, the key question for the committee are one of the key question is whether trump and then she quotes from the obstruction a statute that has been charged against a bunch of the january six defendants, the capital writers, Jake, tapir, interview Kensington,

on on his show. Shortly after what has said what she said anne In kansas girl said we are absolutely looking into whether trump committed a felony violation of the obstructions, and jamie rescued about a week ago. I, the new york times about what Is this scheme to have fraudulent electors certified in the states or or you know, some cockamamie phone certification process that that could be a mail, fraud or or some other actionable crime, because they have to send that stuff to the national archives? You know: send a certification the supposing electors. So they are very openly talking about the fact that they are looking into whether trump committed felony criminal violations. Now when congress is due in a legitimate investigation, if they

stumble upon crime. They are not required to turn a blind eye to it, but what they do is referred to the justice department they dont investigated because they don't have authority to investigate. Now there is one exception to the rule: that congress doesn't have authority to conduct investigation impeachment the constitution says that the standard for impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress has the authority to investigate whether a president has engaged in impeachable conduct any executive official, but a president in particular, and and look at the authority to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors obviously includes the authority to determine whether a criminal violations occurred, because criminal violations can be high crimes and misdemeanors, which brings me to the point

that, what's let's face facts about what the january six committee its we at national review at the time that they were doing, the impeachment were very clear that the impeachment article that they rushed was shoddy because they didn't do any investigation and they ended up writing an article young inciting. two impeachment because that fit but Democrats political messaging, but they left all the indefensible behaviour by tromp on the cutting room floor, all the stuff about undermining the state elections, all the stuff about encouraging pay so pressuring pants to violate the constitution are what he was doing during the hours of the riot when he should have been taking action to took well it all things are not in the impeachment oracle and should have been and the reason there not because they didn't do an investigation. So

What is the january sixty moon without calling itself it impeachment committed They are now trying to do the investigation of trump that should have been done a year ago in general and there was no excuse not to do it because yeah, I know people say well. Trump was investigated, it was impeach while he was still in power. First of all, the Democrats let several days go by before they did anything after january six, then they slammed this impeachment through, but at the time they slammed the true. It was very obvious that the Senate was not going to duck the trial while trunk was still in office, so we had to deal with the whole issue of whether you can probably impeach a president who is already out of power.

but there was no reason to rush this because he wasn't gonna be try. While he was still president, there was no way they were going to remove him while he was still present, so they could have done a competent investigation and they didn't and now they're trying to do it without calling themselves in impeachment committee, but they are in impeachment committee. That's what they're trying to that. What they are trying to do in this investigation is compile a record that de facto, if not the jury, disqualifies trump from future participation in american elected office. I'd! That's what they're trying to do so my point is, I think we ought to be transparent about it, and I have a have a series. That's rolling out starting tomorrow would be a three part series on our website, but what I'm proposing is that they ought to overhaul this committee to make it by camera roll and bipartisan, so that

you addressed the political legitimacy problem and they ought to have a mandate that they are allowed to investigate number one investigate whether he's committed in teachable offences and number to investigate whether they have authority to impeach. At this point after he's been out of office, all this time and the cap out of all this riches. All this does is legitimize what they are already doing, which, unless there were an impeachment committee, they shouldn't be doing if they're. If, if the point of the the investigation is to see whether he committed crimes, and importantly because everybody, when you say impeachment, you know people start tearing their hair out, and I get that, I completely understand it doesn't mean you, don't the fact that you get upset about it. Doesn't

I mean that they are not doing impeachment stuff? Now, that's exactly what they're doing so. My my cabbie out here is having the committee authorized to conduct this investigation and authorized to investigate whether they still or explore whether they still have authority to file impeachment articles does not obligate the house. to file articles of the patron. All it does is give the committee a mandate. Here is what you should look into your investigation. Then they can find other report when their finnish and if the house to fit the things tat. They should proceed on impeachment and they can it can make that decision then. But what I'm saying is

Maybe you ought to have been on a sound legal footing. It wanna be by partisan so that the public will accept as legitimate whatever it finds, and it ought to have constitution with already to do with its doing, which is conducted impeachment investigation. So how does this work so well with the with the house committee be dissolved and in which we live? We can wait in this new basis. What I would suggest is that it be subsumed into a bike, camera committee, because I think, if it were looked at, as you know, a back door way to get rid of the january six committee would that would be unacceptable, would be a nonstarter to me. You can get a bipartisan thing to hear guns at a andy. Put republicans could vote for dissolving it, and the democrats of restarting it yeah

perfect, but what I would I would do riches I would. I would- and this is why I think Mcconnell I think Mcconnell would will be resistant to this. It's just me talking. I mean what the hell who cares right, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea, and I would I would do. Is I'd have Mccarthy able to put four members on it? That would that would continue give democrats a majority on the committee at the partisan majority and also a working majority was essentially janian and kissing her with the Democrats on this right and then I would have mccord. One schumer able to whether it's eight senators have ten senators, but I think it ought to be four and four five and five, and that way you could sell to the public that this is a serious bipartisan investigation and everybody's interests are represented. I wouldn't,

fro, drum people ban from it any more than I have anti from people ban from it, and I would I would basically I tried it. One thing I would do is guarantee that the committee would- be able to finish it's work, because one of the things that's going on here is a huge debt and the republicans are saying- and I think that for the for purposes of the midterms, this is an idiotic thing for them to do. but you don't wanna things there. Thank was trump is again a mind to say it is if they retake the house, they gonna, disband the committee men. I dont know what pulling their look at it, but, like two thirds of the country, thinks that the capital right was a

bad thing that should be investigated and they want it to be a credible investigation. But if you think that you're going to make it with people except in red red places that you're going to win any way by telling them you're going to disband the capital riot committee, that's crazy! I you know, I don't know what makes them think. That's a good idea yeah. So I mean obviously I mean if you said, you know kind of second, it's not going to do this, but the major stumbling block I would think for both sides would be doing and under the auspices of impeachment, because if you're republican, if you have any you know for the with it, if you're within one hundred miles of that, you know, eat your there's a target on your back and your career is done. If you have a primary anytime soon and democrats wouldn't want to do it that way either because it would make make them seem as though they're obsessed with that with enlargement, but actually doing a third one after he's been out of office more than a year right.

that's exactly why they're doing it without going back button, but then I think rich. You have to call them on it if they are not doing impeachment than what's their authority. Is the congressional committee to be investigating cry but the curious down the street. The justice department has seven hundred plus criminal investigations going on, they don't need a committee, a congress to endeavour to do a criminal investigation and a week we may get to talk about this too already what's going on with the committee is clock colliding into weapons? Be justice department is doing down the street, but if they are not an impeachment, come Then they should stand down on investigating whether trump committed felony violations along yeah, whose eyes what else? What's their authority

It's not an impeachment committee and that's the main, that's one of the main things they want to look into if they're, not an impeachment committee, what's their authority for doing so. Let's imagine the justice department and the committee bumping into that. So, what's going on with the how the deal is handling this. This is my favorite story, the red the year of the weak, rigid some connected. If it's like So you have the big incitement to were insurrection, impeachment bright, and You look at all these even mecca I'll find This was why wouldn't selection like you and chinese insurrection, every every democratic insurrection and he incited he's responsible here- Then you cross over to the? U s borne out when the justice department, hissing incitement, who said

the above incitement? What are you talking about incitement? So what has happened now is the cases the important cases are starting to get to the point where their bubbling up to the trial. And will probably start having some trials probably and march, were so maybe beginning April, but certainly by spring. I think I'm gonna start seeing some some cases. so now we have to start paying attention to what defences have been raised in these cases the defendants are raising. Is that trump incited the riot and they have a defence of public authority because his day understood it, the president of the united states was authorizing people to go to the capital and that's how it that's how things that eta control trump said, fight, fight fight and that's what

wait. They want to do when your process as to do it. You do it. Yes, it is so if they incite trump incited it they're all trying to shift the blame to trump, and I A few of the defendants now want to call trump as witness the that's it accords. I'll try to have had a rough with that all spectacle and the other thing is they are asking. We would like to introduce into the record before the jury. The statements of Mitch mecca all live cheney. Every Democrat is my breath, the impeachment article, all of which say its trump right trumpet so here's the justice department covenant and at their first I think, they're first response at all. This is having a hominid, but you know people what they are basically thing:

I don't know who said anything about incitement. We didn't say anything about incitement, there's, no incitement, Denise diamonds, and there should be sitting, Everybody knows that the president has no authority to let somebody commit a crime. This is not only a nonsensical position. Legally, it's so outrageous that the court should prevent the defendants from even raising this in front of the jury. because no rational person would believe that what trunk said was the basis for people to go, commit a riot at the cap and I just think it's hilarious number one that they're taking position, but the other reason it's hilarious is why they're taking a position which is the just

deportment going back to mahler? They always set up their investigations of trump or involving trump in the district of columbia. There's a lot of places that you might have had been you to do. This now hit the capital riots, obviously washington, so that had to be in enough in the district of columbia, but they love. The justice department loves to be in the district of columbia, because the court, the federal district court, the judges, a very hostile to drop and the jury pool in Washington dc is realistically anti trot, so their figuring any trunk case that we have to try. This is a good jury, but to do it well, he exclaimed forum. Now they are worried that they so poison the jury pool against trump, that if the defendants in the trial say truck made me do it, they might get acquainted the jury.

I might actually listen to the events that trump is terrible, so the justice department is still frightened that all the things that the justice department and the Democrats and everyone else has been saying to get strobe is going to come into evidence. These trials laboratories gonna faint there right This is being incited to something usually a defence against year. Criminal act. Well, usually, no, because you know it's like, for example, if you, if you ask me, I'm rich and light, say you need to go steal that stop that amazing and then I finally think- and I got the oldest upper- maybe the fact that you in I did it doesn't mean that I mean doing it is not a crime or my far right. It might mean that you should be charged to, but it doesn't, it doesn't make it done. It doesnt give me a defence and a medicine, the problem

Here is trapped with the presidency's. You know he's not like a normal guy right and there is a defence in the year in the federal rules of procedure in an unknown, the federal love, it's called the defensive. public authority and- and let me give you an example of how it works- a guy goes to work for the f b, I with the dea at as a drug. Inform it and he goes out. He doesn't tell the agents that he's going to work that day or any goes to the place where the drugs are on sale and he he goes and buys some drugs right and then the dea then, when they arrest everybody, including him that guy goes into work, and he says They shouldn't have arrested me because I understood that I was a d informing and what I was trying to do was gather evidence.

d e. I wasn't really trying to do drug transactions. There is a provision in federal law that basically says that if a person can prove that he had reason to believe that he was actually working for the guy Here he has immunity for the crimes that he's committed to what people are saying, is the present I have. The united states told us that congress was trying to steal the election and to defend the constitution, because the president told us this. We went to the capitol to try to stop him because he told us for two months that they were trying to steal the election, and he told us that day that hence had the authority to stop it and could put a stop to the whole thing, and we were there to try to make sure that that that that people we weren't being criminals, we would defending the constitution at the behest of the president,

So let's get the facts they want to make, and it is not enough. It sounds like it would. It sounds crazy in fact reggie walden, whose a judge who has a number that faces when he heard argument about this in the last week or two and what he said hey look I just cause the pope says it's okay doesn't mean a catholic and go out and commit a crime that well yet he's right about that. But the thing is under the under the united states system of law, the pope doesn't have any authority, but the president does. The president is the head of the executive branch, which has all the police and enforcement power. So this sounds crazy, but it's not You know when you sit down and think about it. It's not as crazy as it sounds even legally, and then you have the elder layer. These are jury, tribes, men, you never know, what's sways a sway, the jury and they have cultivated in washington.

Real trump hostility. So now they are worried about the gonna. Have a bunch of people who gonna come in their defence is going to be the blame trump for what they are accused of and that line very attractive arguments and your interesting so stay on on trot and get to this presidential records. controversy so trump evaded the presidential records act and in various ways, including reported lie and most memorably flushing documents down the toilet bullet. We've all tempted to do that at times. I suppose in foreign countries, so what's goin on here, yeah first, why don't they have fireplaces in the white house? well. You know very interesting,

lay a lot of it. This issue comes to a head, I think, rich, because the January six committee is trying to investigate what was trumped up to during the hours of the riot and What first occurred to them is. Everybody knows the trunk was making phone calls because they ve talk to people who got phone calls from trump, and they talk to people who have seen trouble you're, making phone calls I heard him making phone calls and then when they got the records for that day, there's no phone calls. Ok, where there's big gaps and of time when they know he was making phone calls so You know that, obviously this sum records missing, and then you know that stop it. You start up on. Why not all thing and it turns out that these documents with this thing and then he took fifty boxes stuff

home when he left the white house in the national archives have been trying to get it because the presidential records access he supposed to preserve it and when they finally got some of it, there still arguing with the trump people about it was, but the trunk eyes are saying the adjustment. Metals and the national archives are saying you have to give them to us under the presidential records What he's already turned over? Reportedly this classified information and had somebody took classified information at a though you know a repository exposed to have it in and he's not pressed it in any more. So he has had the ability to declassify anything. So he's been holding classified information and he may have destroyed a lot of information that was relevant to various investigations, including the january six investigation, which is you don't, could be an obstruction problem solved.

The centre of this is this is a significant problem. Now the presidential records act is more hortatory than anything else. It has no enforcement mechanisms and I think, rich to the reason for that is often told watergate scandal. It was pretty commonly understood that presidential records belong to the present day with the property of the present, and there was no big to do over this until watergate. When suddenly presidential records became evidence of a crime, particularly within the text, so the post watergate very heavily democratic congress,

This presidential records act to force president's to preserve their records and hold them at the national archives, but I think the reason that you don't like trump. Evidently, if you believe the reports and guy I dont know, that is any reason to disbelieve it. He basically acted with disdain for the idea that the wreckage want to anybody, but him he would routinely. Apparently you know he would rip up stuff and then, if the step had to be turned off, but what would happen is some of his age who knew that there was a presidential act. Both records act would frantically trying to reassemble We gotta take them together. In answer to some of the snuff, apparently some of the january sits committee has gotten their work. It bears evidence of having been ripped up because it's been. Together, worried beer is evidence of having been in its boylike get over. That reminds me I was

in the movie argo I dunno, whether it's actually true or not, but the or the iranian hostage crisis they had had dissed the the regime just employed. All these kids to just do nothing except for try to put put together, are shredded documents, yeah yep So this is a big problem and the thing is it that the presidential records that has no enforcement mechanism. It's got a lot of prescriptions about what supposed to happen with the records, but there's nothing in it. That says anyone who violates this is looking at. You know, with five years in slammer doesn't have it doesn't enforcement because this is a quaint idea rich, but in the seventies, when they get acted ass, they thought the president's in good faith which follow the war, so there's no enforcement is no enforcement mechanism in it.

now the where does that leave us well, to the extent that there is classified information, you could have espionage back and mishandling of classified information Liability which may, by the way- and this is the big story- the new york times today and in other places it's that already issue all over again. So trump one on me years and years about you know how pillory destroy it was

I said that Hillary's email scandal was the biggest thing since water day and you know attack Hillary relentlessly, as did many people around him for the email scandal which really was a scandal, and so what the times has noted is that you know there are a lot of people who were very critical of hillary who, who seemed to have lost their voice. On this whole thing, I confess I was very critical of hillary. I didn't know this was a thing until yesterday, because I'd been I've been working on other things, but I found it amusing doing all this this research today, but you know there could be espionage act, liability there.

It'd be obstruction liability if he's gone out of his way to keep information from congress in connection with the january six committee and then what I would just say in closing on this as it brings back, brings us back to what I was just talking about witches. This is impeachable conduct and, if you're going to investigated as a crime, it goes to the it you know. Look you have now a classified information issue you have a week ago, he said he's going to you know, use the party

power to spring. The rioters he's encouraging people to have demonstrations if he gets charged with crimes and either new yorker wherever else there. Looking at this. This is not like it's not a continuing problem, it's a continuing issue, and it on on that not looking looking for to to be prosecuted, if you're going to continue to have to investigate and what you're going to continue to have the investigators whether he committed crimes, then I dont know how you can continue to hide onto your bed, but about whether this is you know what they, what you really looking at is impossible or not, because what they are trying to do. De facto is develop enough of a record so that he can't be elected again. Ok, that's all the time we have the sweet spot gas it can produce buddy incomparable. Sir said he thinks I want for listening and thank you, Annie, mccarthy, thanks ridge,