The Mccarthy report that gas rail ritual I will discuss with the anti mccarthy the latest legal and national security issues this week. What else? By an ongoing and assessment verdict. You are, of course, listening to a national pod gas, somebody's you're not already following us, strangely service, you can binds everywhere from spotify to itunes and please get pod get an anti mccarthy the glowing indeed gushing fight our views they deserve on itunes. Now without further ado, I welcome to this very pod podcast through the miracle of zoom, none other than any further A rich are warrior good. How are you I'm good? I'm we're all packed and ready to leave beautiful chicago when we're done with the pot

also be out to warm up a little bit. You'd had an account. Yeah you're at its gorgeous. Here I really young written, I loved the city, but we will try to go so gotta go back it will save travel. So we heard from her according friday late friday morning here and we heard from Biden on guns last night. He went big and predictable, and none of this is going to happen, and this really has anything to do with the mass shootings we're talking about typically predictably Did you make it it? I? I guess I wonder what it is trying to accomplish that. I read some reports with respect to france, ample love. We ve talked a lot about the yeah issue, forgiving the percentage of the student loans to the student loans and it does

see to make any sense politically. Charlie's been all this in great on it, but what the reporting I saw in the lips couple a daily says: is that he's getting pressure from people like state, stacy, abrams, who basically say these tight elections or turn out elections, which me we gotta get the base out. So even though the politics overall doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense to me and evidently he's getting pressure from people who expect to be in tight contests that you have to do things that are going to be red meat to the base to get them out to give them a a release to come out.

Now. I would think you know more about this than I do, but I I would think that that would put more democrats in difficult straits than it would win tight elections in a few places for them. So I'm I'm sort of puzzled, and I also think you know this is just an incompetent administration, I mean and then as politically astute they're, not they don't The astute in any ways is, if Biden is, I think, he's drifting he's, never been a strong character in this regard. In any event, but but I guess I'm just puzzled, I know they they feel like they have to leap on this awful shooting in a new valday and but but it's already, you know, what's had been a week now and that the pattern

With these things? Is? Oh, it's terrible! It's awful and, of course it is, but at the same time then you know the pendulum starts to swing. You get back to something closer to reality- and Somebody says you know there were fifty shootings in Chicago. Over the weekend, nine people were killed. There were not only at least that many shootings in philadelphia. There was one incident rich that I read about this morning. There was seventy shots, fired you ve near a temple university sold. You know these atrocious things that that happen in schools, the mass shootings they grab every his attention because of hop how horrific they are, and because at the age of the victims and at its in excruciating story, but at the same time, people get a little distance from it. They say they say so. The message of this is the cops get there and essentially attacks like over an hour

two to mobilise and do anything, and you want to take people's guns away right. You know that just seems to me like the further removed you get from it, the more the less sensible offices and then that's the point in time that biting picks to come out and get aggressive and call the republicans unconscionable as if this were not an excruciating with difficult issue, and there is some Brady answer that bite in this privy to that. The rest of the stone or biden in his and his allies are probably too that the rest of us just to read the weary, the to evil or two in censured or something to grasp it, yeah they're, just somebody comes- are written what let's wait? how to fix it see. You must be in favour of of maskers. And every single proposal that isn't such coms in invariably has nothing to do

It was very these shootings. The exception now is, I do think, raising the age limit. It you know, makes sense cause. We've had a number of eighteen or nineteen year olds carrying out these these, but so big debate, obviously about second manage and Biden, has repeatedly said that cannons were banned the revolutionary war is complete. Nonsense but makes the point that you are the right is not absolute course. No rights are completely absolute, but do clearly a ban on assault rifles or a ban on air fifteenth or semi automatics would be too sweeping into these organs in common use and would be struck down by the court if such thing we're ever going to pass. But how do you think about the the second amendment? Why do we have it and how extensive that it will. Ledger raised the thing about eighteen to twenty one, because I didn't we.

In talking about that at at in our online and offline for since valday happened, since it seems, like you know, in the abstract. That seems like a very sensible thing. It's not at all offensive it's the kind of thing that you could imagine a consensus forming around. So I I've tried, to think about that, as I think, through the legal stuff and the more I have on the more I thought, the more I read up on the cases again, the less comfortable I am with it, and that's because I dont think when describing the white accurately it's not it's not a right to possess firearms

What the jurisprudence on and where the second amendment recognizes, is a pre existing natural right. The constitution does not give the right, it doesn't and safeguard the right. It acknowledges that the right exists and pre existed. The constitution and pre existing the free and is based on centuries of tradition and common law. So what is the second amendment? The second amendment is not a right to keep in their arms second amendment is a prohibition on government From removing the existing right to keep in their arms now, there's a lot of exclusion from what the existing right. It's basically its guns stead

or in common use for purposes of law, off old uses like self defense, traditional lawful uses, but I think rich that we're always behind the ape law in this discussion. Especially on the on the pro second amendment side. Because number one, we don't described the right accurately and number two in the supreme court has done this too. We flinch from knowledge is what the traditional purpose and purpose at the time of the of the founding was for the right. The right is a check on government and with what heller, but you must believe, went into great detail about this, not in the health care

the main purpose of it. Was this idea that when government, when a regime is tyrannical, the first thing that it will do is to disarm the people, so the idea was to have an absolute prohibition on the federal government a bill. to disarm the citizenry and what it was in particular not only allowed to disarm where the state militias, was always up. It was always a personal right, and the idea of the state militias is. all the able bodied men in two different places and in the country as it has developed in the states, could be called up and they were expected to show up with the kind of weapons that were in common use,

They weren't military issue weapons, but they were in common use, war, self, defense purposes and sporting purposes. but the idea was this was supposed to be a check on the federal government, I think we will get sensors. The recapitulating underline it so that the second amount does not create a right erect. It acknowledged as a pre existing work. It prescribes the infringement of a pre existing correct and now and now here's where things get dumb, here's worthing you start to get to the feet of clay about the whole. purpose of it. Heller gets decided in two thousand eight by two thousand and ten, when the next big gun case terms, which is chicago mcdonald against

chicago justice, Alito rights, the opinion and the issue there is. Does the second amendment apply to the states and the court? The court answer that question. Yes, it's interesting that they don't have a year ago that they don't have a majority on Y a but come to that The point I want to make is it's just been two years since heller, where scalia rights, this in a lengthy disposition on why the right exists in the first place and what its actually write a bowed and who who went to limitation on an all that stuff and when you re, just as all leaders opinion in mcdonald, it's almost like the limitation on govern went away. So what a leetle basically says is by eighteen, fifty

the original concern that drove the the codifying of the second amendment in the bill of rights, namely the idea that the the the central government could disarm the people and disarm the militias in a in a in a tyrannical way. He said that had faded from public concern. and almost all of mcdonald is about self defence. It has almost nothing to do with this idea, which was driving idea that it's the prohibition on government To make sure that to guard against tyranny by making sure that the central government can't disarm people so

it within two years time, even on the supreme court with a pro second amendment majority theyve, they ve shifted the emphasis significantly to self defence, and I think the reason that that's significant is if you can, emphasise self defense. Then that seems to open up a lot of area to say you can ban an awful lot of stuff and still allow people to protect their homes. You know you could ban. in theory. If, if what you really worried about his self defence and what the essence of the right is that you can maintain firearms, particularly at homes and businesses, to protect them, that certainly seems to open up a lot of room. If a regulation which I would have doubted would have been upheld, you know after heller. So I think that,

you know where kind of ambivalent about what the young, what the basis of this right is and in part that's because in the twenty first the jury. It seems self written ridiculous. The thought that, having weapons that are in common use of it level to the public would somehow allow the people in their private capacity, but as the sovereign. To be a limitation or a check on the government when we have armed forces that are that are unparalleled in the history of the world in terms of the the amount of force that they can, that they can inflict. I mean it as a practical matter,

The second amendment is not a check on a modern government that you know it's inconceivable to people that the people of the united states, no matter how tyrannical why? I shouldn't say that, because you never know, but I mean it it's hard to believe that the public would rise up against the united states government and have any chance of or any part of the public can have any chance of prevailing. If you had a regime that the military stayed loyal to and the military could inflict the kind of force it could get lucky, you you'd have a lot of sense. Fantasy speculative scenarios, but you'd have a hell of insurgency and tax

you weren't. But it's it's interesting that you say that were in fantasy lando, because what's the leaves chosen heller is you know, look the fact that modern that in modern times, people who have self defense weapons that are in common use

couldn't have a prayer of matching up against a modern american. The modern american armed forces that that gulf between what the state can we can bring to bear and what what the public's capacity to to resist would be. The fact that that has become a such a wide gulf that the conflict itself seems inconceivable, doesn't change with the right sense and doesn't give the court the right, where the power to undo the second amendment, it says what it says, and what schools because she says it is you know you could repeal the second amendment or you could change the second amendment. If you wanted to go the other way, you could amend the second amendment and allow people to have weapons that are not just weapons in common use. You don't you could change what what the amendment says and you could change the constitution, but you would have

to do that. It doesn't change what the second amendment says, as it is now right. So. get a. What does that will mean for what is what does that will mean for row, but we haven't our plate now in and what we should do going forward. I don't think you can ignore the fact that the government, the federal government, is, I mean at the time of the founding at even after the fact The amendment was adopted at the assumption was that the states have police power, and the second amendment was a check on the federal government. So I think the whole idea of the federal government making pronouncements that can basically disarm people is precisely what the second amendment so again, so serpent back to two. What started this portion accommodation when you

said your uncle william, with going from eighteen to twenty one. Do you mean uncomfortable at the federal level as they might be before the state one, I'm not even sure, I'm comfortable with the state, I'm comfortable with the federal and I'm completely uncomfortable with it being done at the federal level, because I don't think the federal government is supposed to have this power at all and as far as the state government, concern. I think it depends on whether you consider an eighteen year old to be in a doctor, die That is obviously some bottom line age limit that can be post me, nobody would say that an infant can have a firearm right or a bore, a toddler so clearly there some minimum age and I can see an argument for saying it's gotta, be it should be higher than the

egypt majority, because there were certain there are other things that we permit we deny eighteen year old to be able to do that. We allow say twenty one year old, but those things rich like, for example, alcohol consumption, this no there's constitutional right to alcohol consumption and if the constitutional right he's a minimum right to self defence, that the government cannot take away and that the supreme court says apply to the states just like it. Just like it applies. the federal government. What's the rationale for denying eighteen year olds firearms if their results right, I haven't- I have a problem with that, and I'm not sure it should be the same. Every place you know, Eric conditions are the same every place so

I dunno, I think, I'd like to see the you know. I I I'd like to give the states a lot of leeway to experiment, but you know they have to experiment with, with a with a realistic, the standing about what the right it is- and I love a couple more things so waters civil rights and the constitution bill rights that are ready, that that had the source as recognised pre, existing rights rights to conscience, or are there other rights that are considered in the same like the same status as far as the founders or concern, for example, the freedom of speech? Now already, there would write well right so that what the constitution says. The government cannot infringed the freedom of speech. It doesn't say we ve got it

in the upper right and speak so frightful here when it is what it is. But I said well and has pointed out to me a number of times the most important word it that amendment may be thought, because the idea is, it was thought freedom of speech. There was an understanding it was ended, that existed friend, it had exceptions like fighting words and obscenity, and you know this book to there's a number of exemptions- time place in a manner respect, so there was an understanding about what it was and very similarly with respect to the second amendment after you know it in a very full throated way,. Explaining what this right is and how it limits. The government-

scalia in heller is very strong, then, on what it doesn't protect. You know he says: look you know we're talking about weapons that are in common use. Now you know the the left makes the argument. While that means, if it wasn't in common use in the eighteenth century and you can ban it, Julius, is you know that ridiculous and there's a lot of things that like, for example, in the fourth amendment context, there's a lot of things that are technologically possible today that weren't technologically possible in the eighteenth century? What we do is we figure out what the principle involved in the right is, and then we apply a bit of the modern context right. So, if you're going to say that the weapons that are protected are the weapons that are in common use, it's the weapons that are in common use now, based on the principle that was established in the in the amendment.

but nevertheless, if you gotta say weapons that are common use, that leaves a lot of room for regulation and obviously I guess it's why the Democrats do the sub resident test with with the salt weapons. You know that ridiculous, vague term that they love so much. You know the reason is obvious that the supreme court has left the door open for if something is more of a military style. If that's the right way of thinking about it, if it's more of a military style weapon than a weapon? That's in common use, the self defence than you can regulated, and The italy is very strong. I look. When you have you know, as well as the right to keep in their arms, was understood. In the eighteenth century there were lotta limitations on the states,

always limit you. Don't you could take gun rights away from fellow you could take them away from the insane their work, but there were place restrictions like young certain public buildings that you couldn't have firearms The state has the capacity to decide whether you could conceal weapons or not so they were allotted to just like with the first amendment, there's a lot of traditional exemptions to it with the right to keep it bear arms. There are a lot of exemptions to it, and the supreme court hasn't been clear on exactly what is right. level and, what's not so there's a lot of room for sensible people two to argue this out and come up with some restrictions, but we ought to do it. I think, mindful of what the right actually is and what the you know, what the absolute limits of it are, that their guns

has to respect so as a sensible person or what would you at this juncture if you could just right emissions on on the hill and and pass something anything to try to minimize this problem at the margins. What what would you do and not just guns in a potential safety measures? What were you on this? I don't think the federal government should do anything. Frankly, I think it should be left to the states, ice, support of sensible red flag laws and I'm very suspicious of the fact that particularly dumber- I don't mean to get overly political about this, but democratic governments use legal regimes as a weapon against their political enemies. So

I there's a lot of stuff that I think in a perfect world, where you could trust people to to carry out a regime in good faith, and I I might be open to all kinds of things, but I would not be open to giving progressive democrats what would be used as a weapon against their ideological enemies, so that would back me up in a lot of places, but not a places that wouldn't a lot of places. I think you could have you know we we've mentioned it and we talked about this a little. Last week we put narrator story of the red flag law that they have been florida, which seems to work fairly. Well, I'm open minded about going at twenty. One I'd like to see all the arguments about it. I'm sorry I'm sceptical because I think again to the extent We have of things that we allow

twenty one year old to do that we don't allow eighteen year old, do there's not a constitutional right involved, and I it gives you gonna have someone that you consider an adult and that adult like. Let's say you have an eighteen year old, who is an adult as a matter of law who lives by himself. Why shouldn't he be able to defend his home? You know why, and so you know, I think this is hard, but but you don't, I do think you could have a. I have a fairly robust red flag kind, system as long as you had due process right, I like. I would want to make sure that if you want to take somebody's gun away, they should be entitled to representation by council. Just like a criminal defended. I would that much more like a criminal proceedings, then civil proceedings. But I

absolutely be in favour of you know you get an order from a court that you could take the gun away. Right, way and there's an order to show cause and they have to go to court. You get represented by counsel and they can argue it out and I could easily see something like that. Worked is no doubt that the you know the court has said that if people are mentally disturbed, you could deny them weapons, but I also think rich. I what I really resent about this- and I think we probably are largely of one mind about this- is that at national review. I don't like this being tree in a vacuum. I mean we started out by talking about all the shootings that happen in chicago and pennsylvania. We're not enforcing the gun was in a lot of places because of racial ized law enforcement. You know this idea that

the criminal justice reform has to have a butt in the front of your mind, racial component to it, so that, if we're, for example, enforcing gun laws against gang members, that has a disproportionate impact on the racial groups, mainly blacks, who are members of street gangs and therefore were not enforcing the laws as robustly as we should against the people who are violating them well If you look at the statistics about gun crime, most of the gun crimes being committed by a very small fraction of people, if you're going to ignore the people who are committing the gun crime, so that you can feel good about enacting regulations that are just going to make it more difficult for law abiding people, how will you advancing public safety? I don't see that at all, and you know Kevin about a week ago,

had a car for us. It was was like a question and answer column about all the issues that come up and in no guns and He's been great on this for years, but its astonishing. The laws we don't in force. We just don't reinforce ricky pudding, laws on the books, but we don't enforce them. So I would like to see before we started to you now: let's, let's, let's cut, because its down to you know ten rounds, I mean to get back to me on cutting magazine to ten rounds. When you start enforcing the gang enhancements in the criminal law. Will, when you start locking up people who were straw purchasers after getting those laws on the bus I don't want to hear about you know new laws that are going to make any difference until we started forcing the ones that might actually make a difference that are already on the books ok but obviously spear discussion. Let's get to this

the trial at the verdict. Surprise you predicted this on this very park asked last week and had then raising questions about the wisdom of this particular prosecution. for some time so for small disk. Why Why did he get it acquitted? Any any new thought on up, I think reached it would as we discussed on friday, the wind was blowing a certain way and it and that's the way I look, I mean what happened was- is no no doubt that man, I don't think, there's any doubt that we made a false statement in the sense that he told the fbi, something that wasn't true. but to prove before statement you have shown materiality. You have to show that it made a difference and the more I think about this. I think it would be a more accurate description of what suspended to say that he gave the F b. I a cover story.

Then that he made a false statement. I mean it. Yes, it's a false statement, but you don't look what he did here. I mean he didn't report this. The way a normal person reports, a crime to the f b. I he specifically targeted the general counsel of the f b. I who was an old friend of his because he figured he'd get a hearing. He understood that the people he was dealing with were probably lie. minded with him as far as the trunk was concern, they had every reason to think if you are bringing bad information about trumped the fbi. You are pushing on an open door and what

I was dealing with. Was the fact that the bureau is, I would say, image conscious is not enough. I don't think that. Does the justice dept image obsessed so if Sussman had come in and said, hi, I'm Michael sussman from the Hillary Clinton campaign, and we have this opposition research that we'd, like you to predicate a federal criminal investigation the bureau would have thought that was too hard to handle, but if he goes in- and he says, I'm michel sussmann, a former justice department, national security issue, who's very profoundly concerned about national security and worried about the future of our country just wants to help the bureau- and we have this very interesting evidence. That's been curious, it by expert telecommunications technicians who believed that the donald trump has a back channel with,

the kremlin, based on their servers at alpha bank in genoa, ray of white papers. We have all these records that you can look, that's what he had to do to get. The information I mean he didn't if he had come in and had been to protest about. It is what europe too, to blatant about the fact that it was political information from a partisan source so some weeks before the election, even the bureau and said now. I don't think we can touch this, but he gave to them in a way that gave them some deniability about the political aspect of it. But the bureau Well. The evidence showed with very conscious of the fact that they were taking political information from apart partisan source and they concealed it and they considered even from their own agent and stay basically wouldn't tell their agents where it where it can

from the agents in Chicago. They lied in their investigation opening document by ridiculously saying that the information came from the justice department rather than from, thus men, and even when the cybercrime guy said, there's nothing here. We looked at this. This is so stupid that I have to wonder about the competence of the people, who put it together, the head of counter intelligence. At the f b, I told them to open the counter intelligence investigation. You not just go, there's not enough prime evidence of crime to open a criminal offence,

You should know problem will just use the same information to open on countering belgians investigation, even though you telling me there's nothing here so given that I think it was very hard for tourism to argue to the jury that if such men had been honest about the fact that he was representing Hillary Clinton, it would have made a difference to the bureau under circumstances where they absolutely knew who he was and what we represent it. He had represented the difference. He it in connection with this, the hackers, the hacking of the servers which all these guys at the bureau, including baker, don't let them on. So the idea that you know they didn't know six weeks before election day that this guy was a top democratic operative and he's bringing them information that just happens to square up completely with the democratic narrative about who trump is

and you're supposed to believe there was no partisan political motivation for acting. So I just don't think you know, given the bureau's performance, I I I dont things: durham had much of a chance here, and then you ve events how in any decide to side is. Is fbi itself a dupe or a malefactor yeah? I think you know in all these cases we really have to

I think rich, that you know the longer this investigation goes on, and this is the curious thing to me. You know the thing that makes Russiagate a scandal as opposed to just a political dirty trick by you know. The clintons are more sharp elbowed than most, but you know to say that one one one campaign is making hyperbolic, potentially libelous claims about. Another campaign is exactly do or different in american politics and in a lot of ways. If you got to you know the way: people It's about each other in the you know, in the eighteenth century, the nineteenth century, it's almost mild what they you know the way they talk about each other today, and so what makes russia gate scandalous is that all indications are that the law enforcement and

Elegance apparatus of the government was leverage in favour of democratic party politics against the republican candidate. So the thing that makes this scandal is the participation of the government agencies. If you don't have that, I don't think it's much about its march of this year. and all you know with the Clinton's in particular it's tuesday- and I mean it's it's the kind of stuff tat we ve seen for thirty years. So what makes this different and particularly dangerous, in modern american politics. Is the idea of the government in power or being leverage in the in the campaign, so look at what happened that I mean that was a theory. The book I wrote about this in twenty nineteen, and there were a lot of indications that this was a pretty open partnership between the obama.

illustration its agencies and the Clinton campaign and since the investigation sorted, you know at the beginning, billboards said we're gonna go away after the origins of this investigation, to find out what happened here and then his time went on. What we heard was president obama is not a subject. Vice president Biden, not a subject The guy, who I thought and continue to think was. Like the root of all evil, with John Brandon at the sea. I think he coordinated this whole thing and the pure, I was much more culpable post election in two thousand and sixteen than pre election, but I think Brennan was the guy who who ran this thing, and he was told he was not regard as the subject of the investigation is totally was merely a witness, and that was what he

that, for an eight hour, were nine, our whatever it was interview with with the with dora. We haven't seen any of that stuff. Yet I assume that's all going to be in the final report, but it just seems that in as the years have gone by we've gotten further away from the idea that this was a leveraging. A a conscious leveraging of government power on behalf of of the of the democratic candidate and then the democratic political opposition, so it starts out that way. Then they say the white house is involved than any city in the intelligence. Community is not a subject them I get dorms case, and now, at least, would boy was saying back when was it look like we had this cabal of people at the fbi whether they were doing it at of good faith but of brazil. Overzealous fear

russian infiltration in american politics or whether they were just political and they didn't like Whatever the reason was this group at the f b, I did a number of things that were very abusive and at least it seemed by the end of the truck administration that the target was the f b. I might not be as broad as it seemed at the beginning, but this group, at the fbi that ran this investigation, It looked like what that was what dorm was homing in on now we're a year away from that, and what does durham doing? It's basically he's decided that the f b, I was a victim And his target has now been narrowed down to the Clinton campaign and I think you know, maybe he's right and what we'll we'll have to see what his final report says and and he's got at least one more case to to try here that he gordon shank, okay. So it's going to go in october,

but we are a long way from where we were the start of this, and I think we're right now. getting more remote from the thing that made the scandalous in the first place, which is the government participation, dora mysterious seems to be that the governments, the victim, I don't think that's most people's understanding, but you know what watch this carefully and it certainly not. What makes this scandalous was hit. A few other things before we go looking for two next week We got the january six committee, finally holding its long problem, and awaited. Prime time hearings beginning on thursdays, positive can be new video, but I guess they've ve been cagey about issues can be the witnesses. Yeah, I think it's a partridge they're being cagey and port. It's because they're still fighting with people who they want who are who they want to call as witnesses

You know they get a lot going on here. I this idea of having prime time congressional hearings. I mean I think the big concern that people have about the january six committee is that it's very politicized as it is, and now we're going to do. You know, for the first time ever we're going to do hearings and I'm time there was a delay can shook. Yes, get em, so MSNBC Cnn will taken I'm insane and it has nothing else going, prime time has had so that at the direct but the broadcast networks, do it. I mean what what I don't see, what what they, what they get, except for the idea that it's prime time do, you think they'll get. You think, still get the first one and see if it goes anywhere. Maybe but under no you're you're broadcast networks, your knocking over all those programmes for for this now their whenever when everyone else is doing- and this isn't like a presidential speech right which they would fight back on their, they don't want to do.

Twenty minutes. This is gonna, be like a multi our hearing. I like blow out their whole like prime time schedules for this stuff hard to believe. But I just think it's a bad look. You know I mean congress does its work at the daytime, that's when they do that when we have hearings when they should should do it. So the idea that there I mean it's just it, it seems like shtick, you know and- and I guess the other thing which I had to do something that'll. That's going to about the next month. I think, or maybe the end of this month, I on a forum for law and liberty, about the fiftieth anniversary of watergate, and so I did a lot of reading the last year after I am, if someone got me Drunken agreed to do this, I had to do a lot and I had to

I reading on watergate, and you know what you come away with on on Watergate. That's amazing, especially if you're a prosecutor, I was a prosecutor for a long time, is the leveraging of the political investigation with a law enforcement investigation because there's all kinds of things that congress is allowed to do that you would never do as a prosecutor. So if they are putting political pressure on every single person who might have some information to come in and testify right and they stay, how could you not give the committee your evidence we're entitled to everyone's evidence, because this is the most important thing in the history of things that we have to get to the bottom of it and I'm sitting here thinking you know in every criminal trial we we kind of managed to get to the bottom of what hap up and you know we're pretty successful searches for truth, you don't get to talk to the main witness the defendant

because he doesn't have to talk to you and we we gave attorney client privilege, we give priest penitent privilege, we give husband, wife, privilege, and I guess we now have to call that spousal privilege right to espouse still. Okay, I dunno spouse, it's still, ok, but the thing is, criminal proceeding we get to the bottom of it. We had. We, we regulated strictly with rules of evidence, does a judge there to police the whole thing and we get to the bottom of it. We we we pretty much, are confident that we know what happened and even in that's by the assumption going in that there were certain privileges against providing information that society thinks. So in important that we will hold them even from a criminal trial that doesn't happen in the congressional investigation. Is no judge presiding over it and in this instance it's totally political. They didn't let the republicans put on

many the people they wanted to put on doesn't matter whether you like them, you know like them. It's congressional hearing, you know, there's a lot of people. I don't like on every congressional but you know it's gotta, be I don't see how people are going to accept this fair minded, and I want to have an open mind about it, because I think this was serious stuff and I I was against having a blue ribbon. Panel, like the nine eleven commission, do this, because I think this is what we have congress for this supposed to do this. But the democrats of botched this in terms of health politicized, they ve made it, and it seems to me that we talked about this before. I think this the impeachment investigation that they failed to do right in january of love. Twenty twenty one that now they're getting around to it and what's going on here, is very reminiscent of what happened in modern day in the sense that congress is doing all kinds of stuff in a very political way that the

it's, this department couldn't do and at the end of the rainbow. What they're trying to do here is make a case that trump conspired to obstruct a congressional proceedings, which is the same charge that they brought against a number of people who the justice department is charged in connection with the capital raw. So they ve already got a judge in California who, when he ruled that John eastman trumps lawyer, had to give up these coming vacations between eastman and trump. He wrote a forty four page opinion that says now that I've looked at it. I think it's more probable than not that eastman and trump conspired to obstruct congress, which is a felony. The january six committee is picking that blow up and running with it and what they are trying to.

was make that case and then get it to the justice department and put pressure on garland to bring it. So we ought to keep up. On this because, like going on here- and this may be more of a booby, a likely criminal prosecution than anything that we seen up until now, and I didn't think that I have to say when the started when the january six many started. I didn't think it would ever come to this, but I think I think it's gettin there they can get get from get drunk from seventy percent of primary suited to eighty percent or ninety percent over. So tuesday night tuesday to chase aberdeen recall in San Francisco. One of the signature, progressive prosecutors use written about from the beginning, and it looks like he's he's. we're going down he's going down. I mean he's he's like way way behind in the polls. Now I saw in the paper of you. I saw it

paper last week that he had bill airs out their rum in favour, You can appearances worm. I I can't imagine how this is going down the drain on so yeah. I think he's going down. I think it then I think it's a big gum it'll be a big notch in the belt. The people who have tried to get behind this, because the war who have made this recall happen because they don't they think they regard. She says the beginning, not the end they'd like to go after more of these progressive prosecutors. Now you know they're they're going to be feeling their oats after after tuesday, but you know to balance that we have to remember like Larry krasner who as crazy as as juice that he was reelected in philadelphia. So you know these blue cities of blue for a reason, but it's very interesting

San Francisco, gonna turn out jason booty and finally, we have the senate republic in primary dragging on doktor, ass, very arrow lead. I must recently, I think it's under a thousand votes and you have this controversy over whether to count now then ballots I believe that the issue raised they weren't dated and technically they're supposed to be dated, and and this this could be working. It's way up the food food judicial food chain yeah, so the third circuit basically said in another case it's related you gotta catch the balance, the male adults and, I must say, rich, even though one sceptical about courts doing this kind of thing. I actually think that third circuit was right.

about this, because there is a civil rights law that basically says if it's a technical provision that doesn't go to weather the voter has is a credentials voter. Then you got a count, the ballot and what? What is very important here. The people were not reporting, especially the p we don't want the votes. Counted is every ballot that comes in the mail then gets date stamped by the government when they receive it. So we're not talking about mail in ballots that could have come in like a week after the election. Anything that stated

after election day is not going to count. So the issue is: do you not count evaluate that? You know came in on time because the folder didn right the right to date in when you know what's on time, because the two state when they took it, they step that my time on it. So that seems to me to be a trivial ever better. They fled a real civil rights law. Says is the kind of thing: that's not material and the vote should began it now. On the other side of this- and this is this- is where I think people out to make up their minds about whether what they think here wisconsin, where I think the laws clearer than others in in pennsylvania, What they basically say in the lobby in in their statutory law is, it is the presumption in the state of wisconsin that we want people to come to the present and vote. That is our preferred

way of voting and will allow you to not do that. But that's not our preference and, if you're gonna vote by male, then you have to comply with every single technical, because. airmen because that's not the way we want you to vote, we want you to come in and vote in person, and I think if it's the law, the state says that then It's hard to hear our voters who say well, you know look this technical thing in that technical thing that that I didn't comply with should make any difference because I think the state's got a very strong position to say no, no, no, we told you if you wanted to come in and vote in person. You could come in and vote in person and we would have helped you in every way we could have. But if you're going to do this, you have to check all the boxes, whether you think they're, stupid boxes or not pennsylvania. It's not that that clear

They don't have like open. As I understand it, they don't have like a clear, clear preference, but in person voting and there's a good argument, therefore, to be made that the third circuits you not the constitution, says if it's a federal election congress can their sub there's one thing: the congress he had a regulate, which is the location of them have of certain kinds of elections. But as far as other conditions are concerned, congress has the ability to to legislate, and congress has legislated the civil rights law. That says, if it's a technical violation that doesn't go to the voters qualification, the vote should count. So the interesting thing here is the supreme but his jumped in an just justice Alito. Basically, you should stay and they may look at this and would be probably good if they did look at it, because it be nice to get a decision from the supreme court

and if the supreme court is of the mind to start telling federal judges, end stage is not to change the rules, then that would be a good thing to have, because, even if I didn't agree with it would at least be clarity. What we don't have now is is clarity, so I hope they. I hope they do. The right thing take the case and decided work. Ok! Well, that's all the time we have this part gas will produce, but a couple surgery thanks everyone for listening and thank you and him anchorage