The welcome to the Mccarthy report, a podcast where it usually rich lowry, but today, jack butler, discuss with Andy Mccarthy. The latest legal national security issues this week is the d o j moving toward an indictment of trump. What does the attack on Lee's elden reveal about new york's insane criminal justice system and did the f b, I g old hunter Biden for investigation. You are, of course, listening to a nash review podcast. If, for some reason you are not already following it or us on a streaming service, you can find us everywhere from spotify to itunes, and please please give this podcast a and any mccarthy

if the glowing indeed gushing five star views that they deserve. I don't think that I really deserve them. I don't even many of you probably don't even know who I am I'll explain that briefly in a second, but before that without further. Do I welcome to this very podcast through the miracle of zoom, none other than Andy Mccarthy, hello, Andy. jack. How are ya? I'm alright? I just have to say this has been a weird week for what I call the national review extended universe I mean, there's like it seems, like half of our staff is out, so there's been a real scramble and the podcasts we have Jim garrity hosting the editors. I heard that yeah he did a fine job your did, and I actually think you know you're you're wrong your blurring the lines here, because, as I understood it, half the step was actually on elsewhere. I don't know that out. That's better vendor they ve been out all week goodness, but we also have Dominic pino setting forth, coralie on mad dogs at englishmen and now

a national view, online submissions editor hosting the mccarthy report, which has just bewildered you are, you are not only welcome. We are very grateful to be able to have an episode with our fearless leader, not here, so I'm looking forward to our discussion. Yes just for some real real dip into the war Andy. Do you remember the last time that I interviewed you, my goodness It was a long time ago there, many citys, like before europe before you will with china on the package. Yes, it was. Why was an intern for the huge Joe and you were going to or for the impeachment of obama book you. Let me have you for that, because he asked me to read the book so I knew you does read all those books. All right. He rehearsed of them here is sugar is very good about. That

but I dont know how he gets through stuff he's a really like reader that that's that, sir. I think the key and a very small and put it, but he retained stuff like I'm a slow reader which, which is has been a lifelong problem, especially doing what I used to do. We really have to get through stacks of staff, sometimes without enough time to do a justice and I'm very good at retaining stuff for a while, but you actually gets through like vast amounts of stuff and for some reason it's it. He he retains it it's there so like when he needs it to pop out it it pops out, at least that's my experience with them. Yeah he's smart man and not just saying that, because I've known him for

my whole life and it he just he he really is. But you are also a smart man and you're a wonderful resource for natural for many reasons, chief among which is the fact that you are capable of deciphering and penetrating these arcane legal national security matters, three, which we are going to discuss today and we're going to star with this. Ah, the d o j investigation of trump heating up, but first I I just want to parse out. or again, I'm going to approach these things as kind of the the lay men that I am and you're going to explain them to me and as a proxy for the audience what is happening we it seems to me we have. Am I right to to identify here, like parallel

tracks. We have the d o j investigating for president donald trump and then the january six committee also invest a msc. These are separate things, but what? Theoretically, the january six smitty is like feeding things to the deo J or like throwing things at the d o J to investigate further. As that sort of the nature of that really So it's you know it's all very reminiscent of watergate. the sense that you had a high profile congressional investigation going on at the same time as the justice department investigation, their separate tracks that conducted by separate branches of government, but the upside for the justice department is that The because the congress is a political body and it's not bound by not only lee

rules, it's not bound by the the normal protocols that the justice department has to go by congress can get away with all kinds of stuff in its investigations that the justice department could never get away with it and just to take one small example, that happened recently. Patsy bologna, who was Donald trumps last chief whitehouse council, was goaded by the january six committee into waving his privileges under long time, justice, department, guidance and potentially, the supreme court has suggested that the that former presidents retained some quantum of executive privilege with respect to their communications and they haven't defined. How broad that is in an industry

investigation. It seems to be narrow, but at least there is a puppet for sip aloni, there's a potential that he could not only say that as a high banking presidential aid. he had immunity, complete immunity from congressional subpoena, because the framers did not want the executive branch to be beholden to congress. So the president and his top aims are immune from congressional subpoenaed. They can ignore them. They don't have to worry that's the justice department's longstanding position by the way, based on a memo that was written about fifty years ago by william rehnquist, who was later chief justice of the supreme court at the time he was the head of the justice department's office of legal counsel. So I I shouldn't digress too much. The the the point is the justice department in it's investigation would

Never have tried to compel the testimony of soup baloney. Certainly without going to court and tried to litigate whether he had a privilege or not congress was able to go him into it, pull because of political pressure. And what ends up? What ends up happening? Is the committee by Using political hammer is able to get a lot of information that, but the justice department normally wouldn't be able to get, because that you, like loose janni, keeps going in front of the the right tv lights during these hearings talking about who's taking, if the men and whose hiding behind privilege, if, if the justice department tried to do that, a prosecutor would be brought up on disciplinary charges for flouting people's constitutional right. And legal privileges. Congo risking do that because they ve got complete complete immunity with respect to legislative activities. So what

appetite watergate now think what's happening here. Is the committee is kind of on on earth in a lot of information that the justice department might not ordinarily be able to get its hands on, and the justice department will had the benefit of that for purposes of its investigation, whether that gets them across the finnish lies in a different story. I see I see so, and this is also true, that this would be the case even if this were a normal committee, but that is the sort of weird nature of the chairs six committee makes makes a lot of things seem more dramatic and more sexier than they might actually be in terms of the case against trumpet like trump allies and whatnot yeah. That's right, you get. The watergate is a is a contrast to that, because Nixon actually did have pretty robust defenders on the war taking she'll Watergate investigations. There was more than one, of course, is the famous urban committee, but

Rather, investigations as well here trumped doesn't have any It did. The january six committee is set up in a way that doesn't allow for alternative perspectives, doesn't conduct crossing Emanation doesn't have any one there who has trumps interests or any else's perspective other than the just d. Committees single mindedly anti trump position You know this and other reasons that we ve covered for why the committee ended up that way, which probably beside the point for what you're asking, because the point is that they have this committee, which is really not conducting hearings, I always think, jack of hearings is kind of adversarial processes. Where you are get cross examination and you always get the other side's perspective whatever it is, and I think you are

lives at the end of last at the end of the last hearing, did something which I thought was really disingenuous. She she criticized critics of the committee who continue to say they and had cross examination and there, the body of their work has been tested, sheep essentially said: do you think someone like bill bar? who is emblematic of the republican? Strong witnesses were who were trump people who the committee has called as as it's what does she said, do you think he's such a wallflower that he would a wilted under examination and, of course, as liz has to know and as anybody who's got any experience with the with. But knows good cry. Examiners? Don't treat every witness that they don't treat most witnesses like their their people. You have to impeach and take their head off right.

you know, if you're a lawyer and witness, is obviously telling the truth, in a trial or a hearing, and you question that witness in an aggressive way as if the witness were not telling the truth. It's going to re down to the witness This benefits and you lose your credibility with the tribunal. So what a good cross examined or tries to do is take their witness and turn it into your witness. So if you had bar on the on the stand- and you had a different perspective from the committee's you would you would bring out from bar, for example, the fact that when the committee says a number of police officers lost their lives in connection with the riot? But that's not true, and you would take him you, you would take him through the back. You would bring out through bar the fact that, before during trumps fiery speech on the lips, he said now

we're all going to march peacefully and patriotically down to the capital, which is something the committee seems to think that if they don't mention that that happen, maybe it will go away as a fact. So what would a? What a competent cross examiner would do is not treat bill bar or the people like him like did not telling the truth. They would bring out the fact that the committee has tried to suppress and in the fact finding process and less knows that I mean come on. So you know that's that's what we're getting from this committee. So it's not really, and you know I keep telling people and we've talked about this a little bit on the podcast, the justice department. There. You know there's a lot of talk about whether the committee will make a criminal furrow of trump, which congress can do it well. That means, as they recommend to the justice department that somebody be prosecuted based on some information that congress has developed in the course of doing its legislative work.

What people need to understand about. That is, even though it will get a lot of attention. If it happens, the justice department will pay any attention to it other than to give it attention. I mean you don't want. When congress raises the profile of something the justice department catch it ignore it, I mean it could, but it beyond a lot of political pressure not to, but in terms of whether they have a case or not merit lorawan and the people working with him at the justice department are not going to care a whit where Jamie were asking at. The committee thinks that this enough evidence, ro the crime they're going to assess. It in their own. not only in their own people. Should a way of going through whether there is enough evidence to bring a charge and when the prosecutor, real discretion or to be exercised in favour, bring a charge there also

to do that on the basis of information that is available to them. That's not available to the committee, because the justice department can do that. Has a number of investigative tools that are not available to congress, got it so moving on from serve them. The merely procedural as important as that stuff The it seems that another thing that is happening here is that kind of, in the same way that the committee is generating like chum for the justice department, is also spilling out into other aspects of our legal system, and so we have a a at least. This is my understanding of how this judge out in California David. harder has recently made a ruling relate to John eastman, the veto the lawyer who who ended up helping trump in the aftermath and his challenges to the two thousand and twenty election. So could you explain how this this factors in here and why? Suddenly? This has gotten attention this this this ruling?

carter of yachting rather yeah. I'm really happy. You brought this up because the committee is pay, it is playing. Is placing such reliance on this. So, of course, the media's placing a lot of reliance on it, and what I think people should understand is It's a very biased source and it's not a very compelling a penny and it also doesn't have anything to do the case that involve didn't, have anything to do with whether trump is guilty of a crime or not. so here's what happened. The committee wanted johnny's man, who was trump you know, main constitutional boy or during the stop, the steel self, and he is now has been liberally bandied about in the committee hearings. For obvious reasons. The committee wanted to get east men's emails with not

with trump but related to anything to do with january? Sixteen particularly related to this idea of trying to pressure pension to not counting electoral vote, which is basically East means theory of what you could do with the electoral count act here. It's a friend what legal theory, but that was his theory and that's what they were running with. So that's what the litigation about is about an east been because she's, a lawyer who has clients wanted to protect his clients attorney tropical privileged people, should understand. The attorney climb. Privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyer, so the water can't wavered and the lawyer has an ethical responsibility when others try to pierce obliged to pierce the confidentiality that the lawyer is obliged to try to protect the clients confidences so

really eastman was doing what he should have been doing by trying to block be subpoena. And the committee was doing what it should have been doing by trying to get the information. That's why we have courts to resolve all this, so the committee did not think it. Let me just stop briefly say that when you're trying to get information from a lawyer, The questions that arise are: does the attorney client privilege apply, which goes to weather the whether what you're talking about is really communications in furtherance of getting legal advice, which is what the attorney client privilege others and then even if it does cover, even if the attorney clam privilege potentially does cover what what a investigator wants to get their arms

actions to it, and the main exception is what's called the crime fraud exception, which is basically, if you consult a lawyer for purposes of furthering a fraud or potential crime for public policy reasons that eviscerate the privilege and the vessel It was allowed to get the information and importantly, a court which is asked to try to figure out whether the crime fraud exception applies. Does not. It is not a criminal courts. The question is not something that the judge has to decide beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't have to make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime got committed. You have to decide that it is more likely than not that a crime committed such at the evident jerry privileges waved in the investigating against any information. That's it important distinction because it shows that what was what was it

stake in the litigation over east winds, emails and california was not be decided as a criminal case. Trumpet was not a party to it. He wasn't represented by car so it was not a jury trial like a criminal case would be, and the judge was not applying the high criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. So that's it. That's the set up and then here's here's. The important thing is that I think people of a couple of important things to people should know. First of all, judge quarter is a former democratic candidates for office. He's a partisan democrat who was put on the district court in California. by president Clinton. So that's number one number two: when this issue first came up, the committee never cited the crime fraud exception because what they said is eastman

Emails are on a server that belongs to chapman law school, not to eastman, he wasn't supposed to put them on their anyway and that, for a variety of technical reasons, the attorney client privilege did not even apply so the can He had no intention of going into crime fraud exception, basically said he he doesn't. Have a basis to to keep this covered under attorney, climb privilege and after the committee staked out their position. The judge asked. Why don't you think I should evaluate this under the crime fraud exception, at which point what was the committee's lawyer going to do? If the judge is saying don't you have an alternative basis that you could get this information? You want, of course, the the committee's lawyers going to say. Oh yes judge, you should absolutely look at it under the crime for an exception, so

was Carter himself who injected the crime fraud exception into a litigation that the parties didn't think it needed to be. It and then, in his opinion, quarter makes a finding that it was more probable that not that trump and eastman obstructed com arrests and committed conspiracy to defraud the united states and therefore the crime fraud exception. Applied and by the way he only he only said it apply to one conversation of all the conversations that were at stake. There was once the communication that he said that the sub at this apply to. So I think this is one these situations where you had a very political judge who reach to say something that was provocative. His peers opinion is written like it's something that's made to be read, which is not usually what find an inner. In a case like this

He had to know that everybody on the planet would seize on it, because what the committee likes jack is when they can say that some third party, that is presumptive lee legitimate has looked at this and said: tromp is committing a crime, so now they have a federal district judge. It doesn't matter who who appointed him as far as they are concerned. This is a district judge right and similarly, the committee very much likes that the justice department has indicted too. That's a people for seditious conspiracy, so they could say This is in not saying this. This is the justice department. Now, if you look card at that, what you find is the justice department theory of its seditious conspiracy cases is exactly the opposite of the committee's theory of trap. the committee says trump- is the root of all evil. He causes everything right. The justice department in its seditious conspiracy case

says trump has nothing to do with that. These were militias that would just using trump as a pretext to do what they were going to do anyway, which is used force against the government. So you know when you look at the little details here, but then again. This is why it is it's really address in a way that the committee doesn't have cross examination and alternative perspectives. If you had competent council who were representing alternative prison, if the country would know all these things. They would know the weaknesses and judge quarters opinion. They would know what that, when the justice department indicted seditious conspiracy case, their theory seems to be the opposite of what the committee is

is driving out, but we don't know these things, because the committee is an is set up that way and that's quite intentional yeah. So it seems that certain things in certain ways it's hard to it. It seems more like a pr campaigns than than a legal or genuine political investigation, but though the pr campaigns is real and what is happening as these at this is inflating the expectations of what could possibly come out of the jerry six committee. You have certain media outlets and personalities also participating in this, but then we have, from the perspective of the left, mr wet blanket attorney general merit garland, who doesn't seem to be signalling that he's going to give them what they want and there there is a memo that he recently signed. That has some of them. People on the left worried that they're not going to get there there pound of flesh. so could you explain? Is this what what's going on with that member? So I

We think the memo is much ado about nothing, but it was raised by rachel mad ass, though it your shakespeare efforts is by the way which spent all you found a fraudulent do about nothing literally, and what is this mixed medical or mixed references to? Is that it do I get a penal. Like a red card for that, and I don't think so. I'd also thing it's impossible to avoid referencing shakespeare, given how thoroughly has permeated the english language may have with many of the words which he just created so very well all right well with due to the great books podcast for more on shakespeare. With that stipulation. So we have our rob r r hamlet, like attorney general, who I think knows that it would be a mistake to indict trump on a flimsy case, but at the same time is quite aware that there will be new me on the democratic base of trunk was not invited so that it that's what what he's dealing with and again,

Is that background during bill Barr's tenure, as attorney general, the big scandal seemed so fought long ago and far away with with the trump era scandals. But the big scandal and controversy at the time was the fact that the f b I and the justice department on a very flimsy as had investigated trump for being in collusion with russia. Remember that yeah it's it's it's dim and distant, but the but there it is so what bar among the among the things that the bar tried to reform was to make it clear that, and the bar where bar is coming from on this, is he do he says the justice department does the ball in politics and we want to get politics out of the justice department. So you don't want the justice department in electoral politics unless there's clear evidence of an unambiguous crime which bar call

meat, potatoes crime and what he meant by that is you don't want like what used to happen when I was in the southern district of new york, you like attorney's office for all those years. When you don't, they would reward lawyers for being created. You don't like it being a being. A creative, effective prosecutor was to come up with a legal theory that would capture people that congress had no idea it was trying to catch. the one it wrote. The criminal statute in question was a real skill to be able to push the end. That's the way that was the ethos of the office and what bar is saying is: that's, probably not a good thing in any event, but within in the context of interference with our electoral politics. We dont want the incumbent administration, which really runs justice department to to be perceived as using law enforcement as political weapon?

Well, unless it's very clear that a president has committed a crime that cries out to be prosecuted, we don't want the justice department to justice department, shouldn, died, shouldn't get involved in politics, so In furtherance of that idea, a bar wrote a memo which basically imposed a new standard in the justice department that says, if you're going to in investigate April, a presidential candidate or president who was in the political aisle, There will context there has to be high level. Sign was including the attorney general himself has to sign off allowing the investigation to go forward. As we don't want, political interference in the election. and when garland came in a garland said. Well, you know that's a good idea. I agree with that. So he

sickly real authorized were reaffirmed, bars guidance, so nothing has changed in the basin the of a garland doing that, because anybody who thought that some office, some united states attorney's office someplace, was going to indict donald trump without like running it, past merrick garland, before they did it. That would be crazy right. So that was never going to happen, and so I I really think that you know they got themselves. A whipped up, because there is this mountain dismantle, but the man. I am just as something that common sense, and that was going to happen anyway, which is if anybody thinks they have enough evidence to indict truck. They gonna have to get the attorney general to bless it, and that was going to happen anyway. But of course, the fact that go One had signed this member, which I think he didn't may, if I'm remembering this right, that but rachel, matthau or whipped up, and it got a number of commentator,

on the left and not just on the left or whipped up so, what ended up happening was LISA monaco, whose jeopardy attorney general and instantly came out and said. You know, look we're adopting an aggressive investigation. We don't have any pre disposition in about it and let the chips fall where they may, and he's in today's garland has basically come out and said the same thing, and I think the other thing that's happened jack is they ve been a couple of performative things that have happened? I regard them as more performative than than law enforcement like for it ample eastman and another lawyer, Jeffrey clark. They just at the justice department wanted information from them and what you would normally do in a case of a non violent crime where you dealing with lawyers as suspects and their represented by council is you would issue a grand jury subpoena and you would tell air lawyers. Here is what we want surrender

or to the fbi by x date? But what the justice department didn't stead was it went to the district court and got search warrants and then it sent the fbi at first to worm, clocks home in northern virginia where they talked his house for three hours, had him sitting out on the sidewalk. Apparently in his pajamas. They showed, at seven o clock in the morning and tell them to get. We gotta get out of the house why, but while they searched it and they, Look all his computers and communications devices away and then that evening, in new mexico they braced John basement, as he came out of a restaurant it detained him briefly and took his cell phone and now they didn't need to do that- that it was complete overkill to do that. But I think what they're trying to do is signal to the crazies that Bonanno, which we haven't. We haven't said no, that we're not going to indict trump we're taking this very seriously. Look how aggressive

We were investigating this. I think it's a mistake for the justice department to do stuff like that, because it's not like the left who badly once trump indicted. It's not like taking to say, oh well, if they roughed up, eastman and and and and Mark that must mean they're taking is very seriously, so we can calm down now this just what's there appetite. They want this guy indicted yeah. So it's just going to ratchet up more pressure, and I really think the problem here is not just a cut to the chase. They don't have a case that true Who is involved in a violent crime? They dont have evidence that he's in a conspiracy to two riot at the capital and I know this is impossible for people to do, but under the suggested people do it anyway,

try to imagine what you would think about the stop the steel scheme. If the riot had not happened, if the, if the riot had not happened, we would never be talking about indicting trump over. stop the steel YAP stopped. The steel had no chance of working. It was failing the constitution easily with so There was no. I. I really believe that the republicans in congress who idiotically supported, stop the snail did it because they know it was a freebie there with the votes were not there to actually exclude any electoral votes. So what these people were trying to do was appealed to the trump base cos trot the helping to inherit that support, but they knew they would win. I mean ten crews knew that there? You know there was not a ten days while these states audited about an all

these guys and congress knew that they didn't have the votes to get any of the state's electoral votes discount this was all this was all just theater and you think also that set out this. This factor fake electors game that suddenly getting attention also to the red bearing no no chance that there is one way that it may not be a red herring in that is, if anybody saw eyeing they certification. That was false saying that they were a certified body of electors. But here's here's how I understand this work- and this is very important to the case- that, with the investigation nets now ongoing enough in fulton county in georgia, what happened in georgia was the electors had. worse subpoenaed, by the investigated, the district attorney in fulton county who fanny wireless. Her name and she's the one who's running this investigation, and they-

We are told that they were just subjects. They were just witnesses in the investigation that they would not targets. They were not subject. Why is that? Why would they not suspects? Well, because what they say is east, An enduring Annie basically come to them in early december and they say: look we're in court in georgia trying to get the election overturned. You know we have we ve. We cited a variety of things. We say a voting irregularities and were were in the courts of georgia, china trying to win and trying to get the election thrown out, but it will all be for naught if December fourteenth comes and goes, and there is no alternative slate of elect There's four trump, because even if we win by then the electoral college will have voted and georgia's georgia's votes will be gone. So we have to have an alternative slate of electors trump

So what we're talking about here are the people who were going to be the slate of electors for trump. If trump won the election in georgia, which he lost by twelve thousand votes. So what these people did was. They said. Ok, we're willing to be the slate of elect, trouble trump tinge, ITALY and the contingency was that the trunk campaign windy litigation in georgia

and there I deal was if tromp lost a litigation in georgia, which he did then the contingency wouldn't happen, and the whole thing would fall so now flash forward a couple of weeks later in december, apparently when they with when they were brainstorming about how to try to get pence not to count the electoral boats. What s been and others may have suggested, was that pence could rely on these contingent arrangements that they had with these electors to count them instead of the state certified biden slights of election in the final electoral talent and what the voters, what the what these so called fake electors in georgia are now saying, is look if trumpet

he's been giuliani in the rest of them. Put their little heads together and came up with this stupid scheme a couple of weeks later, that's not our fault. We just said look we're here on the contingency that a few windy litigation will ready to step in what we didn't conspire to like defraud the country. What we said was if he wins the litigation who you know we're here, So what is the reason I lay all that out is if it turns out the people signed false documents, saying that they wore recertified panel and they submitted does to congress those put before statements in and there could be a problem, but other than that I dont see this cock of Aimee. Fake electors scheme going anywhere because everybody do that they weren't certified and federal law. There was a deadline for the federal government to have any problem with the state.

Certification process, it was December s it's supposed to be about a week before the electoral college meets. So what december eighth came and went if the states had certified their slates of electors at that point, as a matter of federal law, that's conclusive and then what happens on the fire teeth. Is the electoral college meets an? becomes obvious who the next president is going to be this a good argument to be may jack that the january six joint session of congress. doesn't even need to happen. It really is the ceremonial event at which the federal government acknowledges what the states have done, because the constitution makes the states supreme. in terms of a presidential election, so the only thing

supposed to happen on january six is the congress gets together and counts the electoral votes and importantly, pensions they're, not as a representative of the executive branch, the executive branch? nothing to do with this pensions there in his role as president of the Senate, which is which is a constitutional responsibility. So this is the first branch of government meeting to acknowledge the fact that the states have met the electoral college, it has met and they in a ceremonial really the sterile way count the votes and if they no issue about, like you, don't, but by their multiple slates that have been certified by the same state. Then there's nothing for congress to do, but count and in this instance, this data all certified their boats, that was done by december rate, the electoral college met December fourteenth and it was done this whole idea

january six was an occasion to undo that was it was inane and it had no chance of went a workings, stupid yeah. So it seems like just as our grand take away from where you ve been saying. Like We ve got a situation here were obviously the left really wants to see trump and I'd love to see from fraud, marched in order jumpsuit somewhere

and but is worried that garland's not going to do it and then garland knows probably that he shouldn't do it, but doesn't want the entire left blow up at him so that it sort of speaks to the broader question or broader problem of of these posts. Twenty twenty efforts to get trump on, something which is that it's actually kind of hard to get a hit to nail him for a legal offense. If it be it's easy to get him for a political fence, but that ship kind of already sailed- and we were not, we were not aboard it. So all that being said, what do you think is going to happen? Is garland going to try to indict, on something, or is the easy just going to have to sort of bite his tongue and let the bad orange man rome free. Well, you know, I think, the garland who is an institutional list as far as the justice department

so before you garlon was a federal judge. You was a high rank, looking justice department, a show in the young and the Clinton administration so I got to know him when I was prosecuting terrorism cases in new york. He was a very good justice department, official, very efficient understood. The aim of all the people you could talk to in the Clinton justice department, about serious law and order, stuffy was one of adults in the room. I really liked him and then he was to federal judge for a long time, but he cares about the justice department as an institution, and I think that part of him will be screaming

it would be a mistake as long as they don't have enough evidence to prove that trump committed a violent crime, which, I don't think there's evidence of the problem here. Jack is that you know this. This goes to the broader point about the about the Biden administration. Don't they had this idea that the he had this grandiose idea is going to be. You know fdr, in corn needed. There will deliver a big legislative agenda for the left and all that stuff, and he never had the votes for it. So therefore very frustrated they haven't gotten what they wanted out from him out of voting.

Adam the climate. Out of you know the million other things they want. He can spend a lot of money because of the way the Senate rules work, but they can't push a legislative agenda through and they can't really push it through. The administrative agencies deal because the courts are going to stop them, so they are very frustrated and what they can deliver to their base and they feel like they need to deliver to their base. So what is Biden in a position to give the base that he doesn't need congress for any? He does have to worry about the courts on the justice department. They can indict anyone. It's a completely unilateral exercise of discretion. It can't be checked by congress. It can't be checked by the courts, They can file whatever lawsuits they want. Nobody can tell them what to do so. Unfortunately, for garland, this is something that the Biden administration can deliver.

It's the left that they don't need anyone else's help for, and I think, if they're desperate enough, that they think they need to appease their base. The fact that it will be bad for the institution of the justice department and the fact that it will cause major deepening of the political rifts that exist in the country will be beside the point. This is something that that garland can deliver for Biden, and you know, I think, just to take one last example: garlon knew that it was idiot it to send me The eye out to investigate parents for protesting against woke progressive vision in the school curricula right, but he did it anyway. He did it even though he had to know this is like one, the all types

impetus things he ever did in his life and the reason is it was something they could to deliver a left. That was a bad idea, but they were riled up all under a lot of pressure to show that their hearts were in the right place, and I think that's going to. I fear that that will happen again here cause. I don't think they have a good This begins tromp. You are quite right. What they had was a political case against trump. They re, like the january six committee, even with all of its failings, has underscored that there was an exquisite case to impeach tromp. If the house Democrats had done a competent job and actually written articles of impeachment that match them, conduct. The trump engaged in that would have put a lot more pressure on Senate republicans to to do vote not only to convict him on impeachment, but, more importantly, to disqualify him from holding future office

and then we wouldn't be here, but they didn't do that, and the problem now is trying to use something that doesn't fit the trying to use criminal prosecution as a proxy for impeachment, it not only doesn't do the job of impeachment. It will hurt the justice department and probably tear the country apart great. So what's it sounds like fun, so, ok, awesome. Now Now I it's very nice to me, as is the benefit for me, to be able to have Andy around here. To explain these things me and now. I hope that that the audience is now more enlightened about these matters. This matter then, it was before so moving onto another matter at which or on which I could use some anti mccarthy enlightenment. We had a couple of days ago, an attack. I mean this is a sort of disturbing trend. I that there's those are spate of violence or attempted violence on the city.

And members of her parts of our government attack on Lee Zeldin, a us congressman from new york. A juppe candidate for new york governor, is giving a speech Last thursday, in apparent in new york, attacked by sky David jack Abarnis, with with sort of like a brass knuckles type thing that pretty dangerous, I mean it looks like something that you don't want to be hit by a he was not zeldin was safe, the guy was attacker was arrested, but then immediately rereleased, ah, but then now he's been a so that was kind of questionable air, but now he's been charged by the feds with the with something else, so

Now. Is he currently the attacker as he currently in prison somewhere? He was supposed to have a detention hearing. He is in prison, okay, or at least was, as of yesterday. He was supposed to have a detention hearing. I tried to find some reporting on it I find it this morning, so I'm like john hinckley jr, who is not in prison right exactly right right, so you know look and what this goes to is the insanity of what what has been made of the new york state criminal justice system, which is not a trivial matter, because it was new york more than any other state that beginning a note in the nineteen, and these adopted the practices that drove crime down to record low over the next generation.

to the something you have some some experience and knowledge of well yeah. But but this was really I mean I, I watched a lot of it from the federal side, but this was really estate phenomenon. I wish we could have taken more credit for it. Then we d start, but really they change there policies and they went to broken windows enforcement. I mean it was Rudy who, who were was the trail, laser here and he had been my boss, the? U S, attorney, office for about eight years before he became mayor in. I guess it was ninety three, ninety four, but they adopted this. This do intelligent based policing and it worked wonders and yeah you just the thing the metric, I always point out to people jackets. Nineteen? Ninety, there were twenty two hundred murders in new york city, what

in twenty eighteen there would hundred and eighty nine that's how much in the end, that's just murder, but this is like an overall trend with respect to violent crime, but year after Here I mean when I grew up in the bronx in the sixty and seventys, it was a commonplace that you would have somewhere between fifteen hundred in two thousand marty's every year, and they just it it just complete. We got: nineteen seventies, dystopian era, new york city, that was the subject of all those movies. Yeah. There's a lot of them, while those charles bronson movies, and no you don't early clint eastwood movies, that was a dead wall, came out of that to them that iran, but tragically europe basically decided- and I think this is just as the cycle of human nature- it has. Historically it comes up again and again. We you're undone by your own success like cry

goes down to the point where people don't of living memory, of what it used to be like before crime went down and their vulnerable being convinced that maybe it's not such a big problem. After all, and we have too many people in jail and is too much prosecution. Then you don't we oughta easel off and you know the progressives find their voice and it what's to resonate with people, and you reverse you're. What you ve been doing never realizing that what you ve been doing is: what's giving you D, the prosperity that you have so they ve done in new york new. Work has always been an outlier in the rest of the country in that, under its bail laws, You are not allowed to detain someone pre trial as a danger to the community in in the remaining forty nine states and in the federal government. Detained. Someone as a danger to the community.

On the basis of their criminal history and a finding. The judge that, if you release them, they could you know well witnesses, bribe jurors, do all kinds of may. That would undermine the proceedings. every other state has that new york doesn't have it the problem in new york. For the last generation, or so because If you committed a serious crime in new york, the judge could set bail and you could set bail so high that a person could make the bail and they were effectively detained I am in the racial was narrative of criminal justice that we I'll have a new york. What they said was the result of that is that too many people who are black and brown end up being deterred and without bail and they end up getting prosecuted and getting longer sentences, which is why they disproportionately represented among the prison population.

and we have to do something about this or what they ve done. Is you can't set bail in new york anymore, war crimes that data regarding serious, and this includes even crimes like assault, arson, burglary, robbery, if their committed at a low level and nobody really get seriously injured and he's out of that is that you know somebody committed serious crime or what what people, I think objectively, would think was a serious. I'm as well, when the long as no one gets hurt were her too badly you be released on your own, we're cognizance because only a handful of crimes now in new york that you can actually set balfour. So what happened with less elden is even though he's running for governor is a member congress. He was attacked in broad daylight,

kind of like a million people at a at a a press covered event and much like the nineteen seventies, the guy who did it was released while the cops were still work. on the paperwork for the arrests. You know that I mean that's how fast it it happens, and the unique thing about seldom case is unlike air, unlike almost everyone in new york, as Elden is immense of congress, the united states congress and as a result here is covered you know what, if an ordinary new york gets assaulted does nothing the feds can do about it. If you was taught a member of congress does federal law. That says: don't do that so even though he got released in the state and even though the two states,

stanley charge him. I mean this is, as you describe the salt. It was a serious assault with a serious weapon. The prosecutor in monroe county charged it as an attempted assault, and I I couldn't believe that when I saw it because, like you might have said, it was attempted murder, but it was an actual assault that wasn't it attempted assault, or maybe your so and the guy was out nothing flat in the federal government. He's a member of congress and there's this statutes. That say, you can't assault a member, congress, so he was arrested on saturday by the feds on that charge. I he's looking at a pattern she'll have twenty years in prison on that charge, which would never been the case in new york. I think the matter sentenced in new york for what he was charged with this too seven years- and he was not gonna- get that in the end, the federal from it with the sentencing guidelines, apply he'll get real time in the future. Government bail will get set because you can do

someone, is a danger to the community and the judge can always set a cash bail, so it's gonna, be a real prosecution nets. to me, like the guy's, very disturbed Iraq, war veteran, which means he's combat trained so that that weapon was probably even more dangerous than his ends and it would be in the normal persons hands, but who's in all day, and apparently you know sir instead he didn't even know that who, who seldom so that he was a political parson. He thought he could convey himself tat. He was saying something to attack veterans in the meantime, like Selden self is also a veteran. So seems like a lost all but its, but it's just this case and not be treated as a serious case, and if you care about people getting the kind of mental health of medical treatment that they ought to get that much more apt to happen in the context of an actual proof

situation, then what happens in new york, which is you just released people and pretend that you don't have a problem? Yes very adjusted to things about this, it's funny and what you are are ironic. I guess given how you were describing the way that new york is able to turn itself around originally it was not really. The feds were doing it, but now you've got a situation where it's actually better that that this case is being handled at the federal level. Then stay level, because the state has all this laxity about crime. And the other thing would be the you are talking about the cycle of crime with human nature. I think there's also just a simple fact that people are people sort of age age out of it in the sense that, like lessons, have to be constantly relearned by succeeding generations, I always think of an a o c in this context, someone who she's just a handful of years older than me some one who I'm sure grew up in

take for granted the safe new york city and had no idea what went into the house how it came to be that way, and now she looked round In this light, while irey, why do we have all these us? These deserves strict laws in all of these is the serb police brutality This is this, is this is bad we to get rid of it all and then crime starts going up and then it's like oh well, and then the people have to call the work and be like actually police matter. Law enforcement. Others can't believe. I'm doing this again, you idiots, but yes, all of these things matter and so yeah. You know if, if you think about it and rudy became mayor, I think in nineteen ninety three sphere, I was born it's not a lot of people in new york? Don't have any memory of anything that happened before Ruby ended Obviously we not we, don't we don't make students of history like we used to but

People have no idea how bad things were from the late sixties until the until the nineties. It's like that new york has not got. It may be coming back, but it has an existence it in so long it's out of the memory of people. They have you when you, when you tell them how bad it can get they look at you like you, have three heads yeah and I definitely don't have three heads: I'm not a character in total, recall or so but anyway, and we ve been now we ve bear these are, but these have been too darker items. I guess and I dont know if I can call this a light item. Certainly not nash review editors, podcast, might item, but as bad as the travails of hunter Biden are and as a serve effrontery to our justice system, and to that end it likely indications of neptune stick dynastic. Will

corruption, its curve, recognisable in the sense that there is always in the presidential family? There's always a black sheep are going back likes to the almost at the beginning of the country. if you have the sort of narrow dwell who decides like oh well, now that I am proximate to power, I'm going to try to leverage this as best as I can but so that the one hundred buying stuff in that sense is recognizable and it does make it any better and in fact there are republicans in the senate, chuck, grassley and RON Johnson, who have been trying to probe the exact extent of hunter and the Biden family corruption, as as much as they can figure out so and Grassley, who find found time between his,

complaints about the proliferation of alien chosen history channel sent a letter to to are they recurring theme of this part? Guess mare, garland, anti crisper ray serve demanding more acute. none of undermining this investigation, so what's going on here? Are they correct? Is there? Is the fbi dj stonewalling this or are our grassland? Johnson's are blowing smoke here, I think this is real and I am I'm with you on the idea that the hunter is kind of a comic relief, but unfortunately campi. You know, for the reasons we put in an editorial about to say in the last two weeks. It can't be dismissed on that basis because it looks like he's the vehicle for the Biden family profiting

leslie, especially with respect to some shady foreign money on gmos, not only political influence, but the youngest contacts overseas and made into a fairly well. I mean I think, I saw an NBC estimate that it like a five to six year period, hunter raked in about eleven million dollars. That's not, it's that he's not the only one in the Biden family who who profited in the abiding circle, I should say or more expensive than just the family who profited from that, so anyway, Johnson and gradually have been looking into this for some time and even before there was a laptop, they were looking at a lot of

trusting financial transactions in which foreign money was going into account that we control by, for example, hunter Biden and Jim Biden who's the precedents, brother and a lot of it was flagged by american financial institutions, mostly the unit domestic banks as suspicious activity, Just like a brief aside to people, there are laws that control the movement of I see in and out of the country and also the theme booking of cash transactions and stuff eyes people structure their financial transactions in a way that it designed to defeat the book? Keeping? You know the the of the reporting rules, so what banks do when that happens, and I detected as they file it's called suspicious activity reports where a bit

The common example is like with the cash transaction, is supposed to file a currency transaction report of its ten thousand dollars more. So if somebody goes to fight of banks and those to the five two thousand dollar transactions, war comes back to the same bank. On five consecutive days, with two thousand dollars to try to not file the ten thousand dollar report, the bank will think that that suspicious, because it looks like behaviour that designed to defeat the reporting so they're about a hundred and fifty apparently suspicious transactions report, if that were connected to hunter Biden, that Johnson and we're looking at- and we know now that they had tons of money coming in from chinese sources, and apparently kazakhstan and russia in all these other, rub all these other places. So,

This looks to me jack in the end just like to try to summarize it quickly. It looks a lot like what the Hillary Clinton campaign appears to have done, in connection with promoting the idea, the trump was colluding with russia. Our competence is where they really didn't have any proof that that was true, but they thought it would be a good thing to float. They thought it would be health. I think the Democrats in connection with the twenty twenty election thought that it would be a fact is to suggest that the hunter stuff was the product of foreigners information, particularly russian disinformation. So what happened here looks like a little a clever little lamb to step that they did in conjunction, perhaps with the fbi and the two fbi agents who are involved here

guys who hands chequered pasts, to say At least one of them is the young. Is a guy named Timothy Paul? Who is the head of the washington office, whose already been referred to the justice department for investigation and discipline because he used his linked in account. To do political started to trash tromp interested? You know the republican administration, exulted use linked in period. There you go. That's right, I don't know why I do you know. Do you get a million of these like someone wants to join you? like the network and I'm like how the hell do. I even have a linkedin network linkedin so weird where one of the weird ones anyway, digression so yeah die so. The other guy is this. Guy auton forget his first name off the top my head, but he he was involved in the trump russia business. He was

one of the agents who interviewed the sources for christopher steals now infamous dossier and the result of all that was that it was not reported back to the pfizer court that you know there were major problems with the the application The bureau had made so these guys have had chequered passed, but here's. Please what happens that the democratic leadership in july of twenty? money, which is like Schumer Pelosi. What warner? adam shift, where the heads of the intelligence committees they go the bureau- and I say we think that were threatened here in the ep being alleged by foreign interference, and we want a briefing from the fbi, a defensive briefing that is going to give us a what the landscape looks like with respect to foreign interference and then three days later run widen and none what's peters, first name. I can't we begin

repeaters. Oh yeah, yeah, that's not very forgettable, senator! That's that's good! That's forgivable! Mistake, yes, but they happen to be at that time. The ranking members of the committees that grass and johnson run- and they Right a similar letter to the fbi where they say we think we're already being tormented by foreign interference and they use some of grassland johnson's evidence that they have a master, hunter Biden in order to suggest to the bureau that maybe this could be a product of foreign interference, since it is so much foreign connection to it that maybe this is foreign intelligence disinformation. So they write to the bureau on that. This happens like July. Thirteenth is the first contact and July. Sixteenth is the second. So what ends up happening? Is the bureau? Has this? Guy ot and right and assess

based on what he's gotten from the senators that, oh, yes, it looks like we're being threatened by foreign interference in the alike, and apparently in number. pleading this assessment, Brings in the agents who are investigating the hunter Biden case, a nice up according to the reporting from bresler, they tell em no, no, no. This is in foreign into information of disinformation, We can verify this stuff, some of that we have verified some of it. We could verify if we do other traditional forms of investigation, but this isn't information and I am reminded to point out to people what I said back when the hunter stuff. First, but the laptop first first came out, and that is the fact that you get information from even russia. Does it mean its descent from it?

in the sense of not being true a lot of times. Russia leak stuff. That is true, but they think will be harmful and what I have always told people is in my career. I've taken information from them, A shady people, including you know, terrorists and mafia, hit men and fraudsters, and if you can take information from anybody? The issue was like: can you go out uncorroborated, verify it and then figure out what it all beans in and in that put the course of that you try to figure if you'd be enrolled or not, but you still take the infirmary so just because you say something came from Russia, that doesn't mean it suddenly, you know radioactive and you can't consider whether its true enough, not- which is what the democrats to be seen stay here, you know if it's from Russia must be disinflation, so any help ought and rights. This assessment that basically says that you can dismiss all this stuff is russian disinformation,

then the bureau brings these leaders in congress, including Grassley and johnson in august of two thousand and twenty to a briefing that grassley and johnson don't ask for this. Is this was asked for by the Democrats and grossly said this was completely gratuitous. There was no need for this briefing, but the Democrats use the occasion for the of the briefing to leaked to the media afterwards that the bureau things that were facing russian disinformation and that becomes the germ which results in all of the hunter Biden in the run up to the election being dismissed as russian dis information when in fact now you know, but we now know that the these transact It's really were suspicious the bank really did say they were suspicious hunter really did have this laptop. Information on laptop really is hunters. It really is disturbing, but you know for the for the month

in the lead up to the twenty twenty election? I think it gave them a real opportunity that they used to a fairly well too. smith, something that would have been in a different kind of election. It might have been a very commercially issue. I don't off, it would have been a decisive issue, but it would have been an important issue. They were able to sweep it under the rug at the critical time Yeah well Andy eddie. I just can't believe that you are you're skeptical of a hundred binds expertise in the energy. sector. I can't you But do you not think that all these these these shady foreign governments, are seeking out his his when Joe com a genius or something at one point yeah? Well, you don't like it if you, if you told me jack that he was if you wanted to invest three point: eight billion dollars in a coal mine, I would say a pop hunter wizard. The two guy you're right when it comes to comes to oil and gas,

very suspicious. Yeah I own anyway. That but for anyone who has accused me of being a one hundred bind shell, this is called sarcasm people so get used to it. But anyway the Grassley and or grassley concludes his letter. By accusing the dear jane F b, I possibly being institutionally corrupt their very core, and if that's the case, then that raises more lots of questions, but the the the main one. I guess that's remainder, of what we're discussing now is what's going to happen next, like are we going to it? I think people are searching for a sort of smoking gun moment in the sense that, like we find out that Joe Biden was deeply implicated in a lot of this, which it seems like he in fact was. I mean we're getting evidence that he was in at the very least a conduit for some of these relationships, which is.

deeply questionable, but will ever be enough for him to be, or at least hunter to be charged with some some crime. I that's that's my question. I I I'm no defender of of the man but like what's what's what's the likeliest thing to happen here, he said Well, I'm more worried about what happens with deal jane the fbi than hunter, but I do think with hunter what I I always thought this is just cynical. I guess, but but that's that's what you get at my age after, after all all sign, but I think what you gonna do with hunter. Is they gonna try to please him guilty too tax violation, and maybe even a guns. George action with the with the full statement that he made to get the fire army. You, don't you have to check when you filling out those Charlie is going round number times you have to. You. Don't have to wrestle with the question that it you whether you are a user of illegal narcotics.

We now have at only hunters history of using illegal narcotics, but it looks like does a video of him like five days after he gets the gun waving around the gun, one of his escorts escort so yeah. I I think that what they may do is plead them out to that which, by the way, if they do, that, that will that will cut away and insulate the most interesting part of the investing, issue, which is, is the president influence by foreign money. Has he been compromised by allah alive? millions of dollars that have gone into the into the Biden family coffers into statics I ain't some of the policy strangeness that we ve seen, for example, with respect to china, but I think if they do that jack it'll be a little bit a theatre.

where Biden will be able to say see, I didn't interfere with the justice department, the justice department be able, hold its head up and say see. We investigated the present within son without fear, or favour and hunter will plead guilty and get no jail time. like a gonna, be a minor rob tax case he's already, You got some sugar daddy out in california, this hollywood lawyer, whose, given him a two million dollar alone that is used to get himself right with the ira I don't think he owes them money anymore, and even The gun thing is serious. Nobody gets prosecuted for that. So what you don't lawyers will be able say, as it would be, selective prosecution not only due to two haven't legal body for it, but the thought of sending him to jail for something that the government doesn't. Ordinarily, even prosecutor would be wrong

and- and I think you know some judge- will listen to all that and say: yeah you're, right and they'll give hunter like supervised release and probation and that'll, be it and everybody will say, see we. We we performed honorably here, but we really have happened, is a big topple had been thrown over the most interesting part of the investigation, which is the foreign money So that's what I think will happen with hunter forest. The f b I and and the justice department are concerned. The likelihood is the republicans are going to win. mid terms and they're gonna have subpoena power, and I think that I wouldn't be surprised if, once that happens, a lot of people currently at the justice department, the f b. I decide that maybe it's time to start spending more time with their families need a cloud. Yes, while these and instigations are going to be the republicans. What I have said from the beginning, with respect to the january six committee, is

democrats. What goes around comes around you're going to smash every norm known to man in doing these scorched earth investigations of trump. Don't think that this isn't going to come back around right. The common man for all seasons, thing about the the the country planted thick with laws and if you cut down all the trees, looking for the devil, what are you gonna do with the devil, browns and but anyway, yes, so you're you're describing a say when it comes to hundred Biden you're, describing essentially what the cia would call a modified, limited hangout, a release of some information. prevent the release of the even more incriminating information. Exactly but the so I'd I if I

If I were a sign of a presidential rice presidential family, I would simply not do deals with with shea foreign governments, but that's just me so anyway, who knows what I would do in the actual situation? I like to think I will, if we, if you, if your escorts were depending on you Yes, my escorts right so anyway. Thank you anyway. I feel very enlightened. It has been a it's been a real like privileges to for me to be able to ask you about these things that are often complicated understand, because many cases, it just seems like lawyers, designing things so that they can

talk to each other about them, but I I feel enlightened and I hope the audience feels the same, but that is all the time we have so. Thank you again. This podcast has been produced by the incomparable, the unparalleled the magnificent. I added a few additives there. Sarah shitty thank you for everyone for listening and for putting up with my substitute host duties. I hope that the very least I made it tolerable and if you absolutely hated it, the richest gonna be back soon and you'll never hear from me again and of course thank you, Andy Mccarthy, for making this podcast. Stay listen about despite my supper hosting abilities, and I guess that's it so can come on it's not. Every week we get from shakespeare to thomas more than one episode of me

through maybe the bars been set high, bring it rich stood. Do your worst anyway. That's all.