The welcome to the Mccarthy report thought I guess, we're irish larry discuss with Andy Mccarthy the latest legal and nash security issues this week. What else the morrow other search. You are, of course, a thing to an actual pot gas. If summaries you're not already following us on a stream of service, you can find us everywhere from spot. If I too, I tunes and please give this podcasting Andy mccarthy- the glowing indeed gushing fights our views. They deserve on itunes, now thou further or do I welcome too? it's very pod through the miracle of zoom. None and in the garden rachel area. Good Andy. How are you- As we don't say raid. I think we're fine we're good as new

This is one of those weeks. We know it's been a good week. We already talked like five times are another phone before we get to the friday. podcast conversation, but as weird preparing to record fear late, I guess it's early afternoon, I should say on friday, dawning news of upstate new york, salman rushdie who, at a fat warm placed on him for his novel forty years ago has been. stabbed when he was preparing to give her a book, talk what what? What we make this? Well, I think rich it probably at least two things one is, you know we should stress, we don't know how bad this is. Yet the the I saw a report right before we started. That said he was either punched or and there are other reports and say he was stab

No one is saying how bad it was yet because this is something I think it literally just happen. You know, within the last hour or two and the news, is just breaking, he was, evidently making a public appearance and giving a talk when not when it happened, and I guess you know that things like I would say about it. One is the overarching point, and then one is a here and now point. The overarching point is it continues to be you know, jihad is terrorism hasn't gone away? It continues to be a major security challenge for the united states and when you have someone like Ayatollah Khomeini, who is an iconic figure in june circles, to the point that despite the enmity between sunni, an shi ite, she hata circles khomeini. What kind of a cross cutting

figure, when I am, I prosecuted the blind shake her wings and iconic figure in sunni Islam and sunni jihadist circles. He was again admirer of Khomeini they would have had you know. I always thought that the debt, This is between the shi ites in them and the sunnis when it got down to what I mean they have theological differences, but a lot of its more political than than theological, but when it came to to one somebody who was willing to take on america like all the rhetoric, the blind shake engaged in about cutting off the head of the snake, which was his favorite way. Talking about america that all came from maybe not, and he really admire the way that the committee was willing to take it to the united states. In a way that you know that most of the jihadist activity was more local up until that boy and common is essential. and showed that even in the nineteenth century,

these- I remember you know in the seventies people looked at this and said you know a fundamentalist religious movement taking over a country in the in nineteen. Seventy nine are you kidding me But you know it was very real and- and I think we underestimate him- we learn to I detriment new years later, that we underestimate it. But when a powerful iconic figure like this issues of fat law, it tells all the crazies globally that you know your duty is to take this person out and it as no statute of limitations on hundreds, like you don't forty years ago, so that's always out there and then the other thing that the here and now I dont think you can. I may we don't have details yet, so I want to get hysterical, but I dont think you can dismiss the possibility that there is a connection here between what happened:

you're and what we're learning about what the iranians have been up to in you know in the last couple of years, including the case that we've learned about in connection with our friend John Bolton, which was a very serious of murder conspiracy. So I I'm I'm very worried about this, because I think that you know we, we kind of, I think over correct, so you don't want when the soviet union collapsed, and then we had this wave of jihadism. We decided that you know big power. Politics was over But now we were in a world of love. You know it national law enforcement, trying to bring jihadism to heal in great power. Politics was over and now all of a sudden, but she hot is and got got shoved into a corner someplace. In the end, great power politics was back and we could pretend like the jihadist right was gone, but if you know,

we talk rigid less than a year ago, maybe a year ago like it, but it will runs together. But when none when Afghanistan col as you know, this was suddenly something that it was always how we needed to keep our eye on again, but suddenly, once again, we had Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups having what they he have to be a major international threat, which is partnership with the incumbent government and the iranian problem has never gone away and in many in many respects has gotten has gotten worse. I think, as you know, as binding it from but ever insane reason decides that you know what he wants to take another shot at bringing ran to the table to rejoin this does very counter productive nuclear deal. That would put them on a glide path to to have it

weapon, you know I was- I was almost relieved yesterday to read the washington post at the bite. Administration is worried about trump having nuclear, because at least need at least a worried about somebody getting nuclear information is very. very bad. Very it's a sober reminder that the world continues to be a dangerous place. So, let's let's go to these search. First of but start and further the listeners we're gonna, be overtaken by events and on this and because we were expecting a ruling by the the judge on whether the can be unsealed. What do you expect to happen? The

mystery to me. Ridge is why president trump hasn't just put the warrant out, because we know that the justice department now is going to ask the judge to unseal it and former president tromp had made an announcement last night that he not only is not objecting to that. He is encouraging for it. If now, I've always liked it was that the store, the young news coverage today in the trunk friendly circles, I thought was very amusing because they all ran with this headlong trumped demands. Release of war and unlike truck, we had the feeling in my day, gonna put it out any tybee. He wanted to, but I guess the only at the only question I have, as will will trump try to jump the gun Ah, now, on this judge bruce reinhard, I should I should rich by the workers, has been some confusion,

about who reinhard is. I should probably just take a step back and tell people it was. It was wrongly reported in a couple places. I think this came from Keith oberman, first, that dumb, that reinhardt was a trump appointed judge and in fact reinhard is not. First of all he's not aid, a an artist, three district judge at all he's, what's known as a magistrate judge, and they are really high level appointees of the court, not on the president's. Don't don't pick them and they help the district judges with mainly what they helped them with his like discovery and civil cases and try to manage its civil dockets, which are immense, but among the young

among the lower level tasks that they perform? So the district judges don't have to is that they can sign search watts, so he's not a trump appointed judge, even though he would he became a magistrate. Well, trump was president. He was picked by the other judges in the southern district, the florida and he does seem to be immediately. I think he should have refused himself from this because he already reduced himself from something that had to do with the a litigation pitted tromp against Hillary Clinton, and he said he had to get out of that cause. He couldn't be fair, and yet he did Why did he was in a good position to sign this warrant, which I think is not not a good move on his work, and I have a feeling that president trump may remind him of that thing. I had heard it adequately over there, but in any event, he is not a trump appointee

He did sign a warrant. It's a big deal to the justice department that he signed the warrant because, as we saw from attorney general garlands, very brief remark yesterday they deserve this deportment ain't sand much so their relying on the fact that they got a detached magistrate. Judge to sign off on this. That that's that's their basically their case that they have probable clause, at least until we see the probable cause warrant, which may be a long time from now before we see that. But my big question is: will president trump jump the gun on the job and put the worn out before. The judge does, and the only reason at this point rich since he could have put it out at any time and- and I think garland played that port of things. Well, by not only getting out in front of trump

in trying to unseal it, which kind of underscores that the justice department is happy for people will see the warrant and its trump that that doesn't want them to see the warring, but I think he's stuck the twisted the knife a little bit by saying, but of course the judge should look should hear president trump to see if he has any objections to releasing the warrant so that his privacy concerns and other concerns are are protected, so it not only did garland take the steps that are necessary to release the warrant. He reminded people that trump hadn't released the warrant and he put it on trump again to to ask him if he are you objecting to people seeing this, and so I thought that part of it was that was well played. The only reason I could think of that trump has didn't put the worn out yet is maybe he wants to see the warrant that the justice department puts out to compare it to the one he has to.

sure that it's on the up and up other than that. I can't think of a single reason why he wouldn't put it out already so the the reason that trump credits pause, it is the more makes a clear. This is really highly sensitive national security material and tromp would prefer the people dont know that earlier the delay them no yeah yeah. I well, I think, that's what I think that's true, but I also think you know once its clear it's going to be released now. What's up it's a matter of posturing right. You know that it's it's going to be released to the question is: who puts it out? You know because the game that gets player is spent. I even the justice department is spending. Now there get out there they're. Not only are they speaking publicly, they are leaking to their friends at the washington. So, let's some I want to get into the main substance of it and just just just a minute, but the last thing on this so

is your view of garland yeah cause on the one hand, and people are very critical. I believe I remember correctly. You are correct critical of komi going out and and talking at great length about the the hillary matter and violating protocol and the, from the justice department was were never do that again, we're not talking about their sorry. It's is silent as crypt. That's just we operate and after two or three days, a heat well. Here's merit merit garland, talking about it and engaged in a game of of spin and an interpretation and public, her over a matter that that would would never be the case in any any other instance yeah. Well, I think it's very different from only the rich in the sense that he didn't more showed the evidence against trump. The way that does the way they call me did with Hillary Clinton the outcome we spent.

forty minutes. If you only listened to the first thirteen and a half minutes of combing the summation as it were, you would have thought that he was about to ask the jury to find Hillary guilty. I mean you know he. He really. I think it expertly People want a good prosecutor. He was when he was a prosecutor, but he did you know he really marshal the evidence against her darling. I didn't do anything like that. Going basically said, as he came out, and he said you know: look we don't talk about this stuff, but as long as president trump has gone public with the fact that the warrant happened, we think that we should put the warrant up, but we're not, putting the the affidavit out, which is one, lays out the probable cause without going to describe the evidence- and I think that you know that the upside rich for him in doing this is that it underscored the trump is the one that doesn't want the warrant.

The trunk could put the worn out at any point and what he was trying to do was have it both ways right. He was trying to put his story out about what happened, but at the same time not let people see what the judge said. The f b I could search for so That sense, I think it's it's a marginal advance of the ball for garlon, but I think for the very reason that you're stressing, which is that he has deep misgivings about even giving this. When, at all this a good argument, I think that it's a net negative forum in this

instead. If you don't speak, I think what what people are going to assume is that the justice department disagrees with everything that president trump is saying and as far as the probable causes concerned, they can rely on the fact that the judge found probable cause to the justice department doesn't have to defend that at all. Stuffy silent- and you know the justice department has a you know- has a good position, Just are you know they? Basically, we can assume that they refute everything. The trumpets sang. The problem once you begin to speak, is that you have to address the things that people are actually interested in and if you fail to do that, when trump is out there speaking, then it's like you're, not refuting what he saying. So I think you know what I think people are interested in here is

why the warrant- and why now you know president trump is out there saying we were having to go. She asians with the justice department. It was amicable back in june, we sat down. We had a good needing. They asked me to put a better lock on the premises. I did that we gave them some stuff if they had asked us for other stuff and we had it we would have given them. Two and now you know, president trump has a has a spotted history and, as as some have said, only a you know, a sort of a remote relationship with with the truth, and you know find that that may all be so, we could be skeptical about his version of events, but the thing is, he has a version of events that he has addressed publicly. So, if garland's going to choose to speak, he needs to address what trump has said. Otherwise, he's going to be taken to not have anything to say to refute what trump has said. So I think the downside for for garland and speaking

Is that once you start to talk, you have to get, you have to engage in the things that people care about, and I don't think he did. I really don't think he addressed the questions that we are interested in and he kind of love, trumps version of events out there, one rebounded, so So let's get let's go to the judges. Basics urine and that this option so there's sam trump, taxis boxes of material, either carelessly or believing that they belong to him archives. I wait a minute. This does not belong to. This latest blocks the united states government there's a back and forth about it fifteen boxes go back to the national archives and a go. She ate it. Sediment and then there I will wait a minute. We're looking at the stuff were seen classifies stuff.

We are sure, there's other classified stuff, worry, there's other I spy stuff and materials are still keeping official show up at marilla go in june there, ok. You know I was put a lock on on this and were concerned about this in the trumps lawyers. Are there at its core? while reports amicable, you know trump's playing the host, you know, can I get you guys a drink, you know whatever you need, don't worry fellows will get it for you and then there's subpoena also there in june, and according to what some people said tat Is it there's no communication after that, except for a request for school? the video around one of the rooms or the basement just to make sure people aren't coming in and out which is currently complied with and then boom. You know the the f b I as you know, not roger stones, dial not banging on the doors guns drawn email without wearing their at their traditional sure, sir or jackets

but there's you there. Therefore, for eight hours, rummagings through starfishes in here lay aggressive move so it's just what what's you're watching, which one would you be coupled take away? from the the basic facts here and then then we'll pull on various threads while I'm I'm surprised by by some of it. Your your narrative is is all quite correct that the thing I wonder about is I've been in a lot of meetings where subpoenas were were exchanged and they don't tend to be that amicable. So I'm I'm surprised in the in the middle of all that amicable unless that, like a subpoena, gets gifts handed over. So I'm a bit suspicious about some of the details and I wouldn't society was it was handed over that interaction with officials came down, you're rich, I think June eighth was the meeting. If I'm remembering the date right.

and I'm gonna get back to june, because I think the data is important, but This is a scheduled meeting. Three or four fbi agents come down with some justice department officials, Floating high ranking national security division, justice to corporate officials, so its clear that However, negotiations had had resulted in this meeting. Ended up with the yeah you don't beat. It was clear that what this was all about was national security information, and this as we have to assume that whatever negotiations there were began around january of twenty twenty two. When.

The national archives. After getting the sixteen boxes of fifty boxes that you refer to, they find that there is this documentation, that's mocked classified and as a result, they refer that to the to the government now I want to just take a second rich and make a point which you mentioned. The national records act or the presidential records act and there's this interplay here with the presidential records act and classified information, because this has been an conflated in the public discussion I think we need to tell our listeners that presidential records act is not a criminal statute up until watergate. It was kind of assumed that president's the owners of the records of their administrations that they were the property. The president, not the government.

To the point that this is why you have all these, you know presidential libraries all over the country. For the you know various presidents, because these were not deemed to be government records. They were, they were yet on the president's cereals. In the watergate controversy, there was a big to do, obviously over not only the tapes but other materials, and the question was: did the tapes belong to Nixon where they, the government's records? Were they? you know what were they and congress at that point, jumps into the breach and they change the the. Underlying legal assumption by essentially saying a lot of stuff is presumptive. Government material doesn't belong to the president, but the thing is they were on. You know they were breaking new ground and it wasn't back in the nineteen seventy. People didn't instinctively say all we have a situation, we need a criminal law here. That was not the way things work. I think we're we're

wicked criminalize things now than with than we were I half a century ago, but they they make this statute. The basically says you know This is this: is government material? It belongs to the government. The national archives are going to be the custodian of it, but they don't put any criminal law provisions in it and the reason I think that's important distress is we're talking here about us search warrant as a matter of criminal law. You can't get a search warrant unless you have probable cause of a crime and probable cause that evidence of the crime is likely to be found in the place you want to search. So if you know have a crime. You don't get a search warrant. You can't get a search warrant over the course of over the presidential records act. Now you might be able to come up with some. You know interesting. Creative criminal law.

Theory that these are stolen government files- maybe you can, you know, do or not. Do it try to invoke the embezzlement statute or what? But I don't think the justice department wants to do that in connection with the president, because you know, like Barack Obama has, like thirty million doll documents worth of of stuff- that, as I understand it, hasn't been accounted for. You have the whole Hillary Clinton debacle and you How do you know a number of disputes between former presidents and the government about what stairs and and what belongs to the government? but the reason I want to make this point is classified information- has to be the reason why they do the search warrant? It's a doctrine of law and the reason I say that it classified information has to be. The reason is because there are criminal laws that deal with the mishandling and worse of classified information. So that has to be what we're talking about. If we're talking

that a warrant and there's been a lot of reporting that suggest that you know they were very concerned about the presidential records act, so they got a search or you can get a search warrant for the presidential records that so there's a doctrine of law that says why The agents have lawful authority once they have a valid warrant issued by a court if they go into a premises, and they see evidence of illegality- that's not covered by the warrant, they're not required to turn a blind eye to it. So I bet you, the justice department takes the puzzle, given that even beyond classified information is, if that's what they is the, if that's, what got them in the door. Once there in the door and they are conducting a lawful search if they see government records, and they know that there is a dispute regard.

in the presidential records act, their position will be they can take that stuff. Now I think the trump people are going to probably come back and say the doctrine of law that says that you could take stuff that is not covered in the warrant means evidence of crimes that are not covered in the warrant. Evidence of civil wrongs, so that'll be an interesting dispute going down the road, but I just want people understand they got a warrant. It's the classified information of mishandling classified information. It's not for all these other government records, even if trump shouldn't have taken all the government records that he Jung, and so in other words, if to try to put a put it out, pin on it, if if he has stuff that national archives thinks belongs to it and under the presidential records act seems like national archives has a better case. That's not happy. I can't show up over that it it s sharp over, a violation of some logic,

but the handling of classified material. Yes, it needs a crime. It is that it has to have probable cause of a penal offence and those president, records act is not a there's, no pain, and it is the presidential records our constitutional. I dont know that it's been litigated. I think it would probably be upheld by the supreme court. I think the congress has to pay our have to take the position that at least some presidential records, particularly if their presidential records that deal. Agencies, executive branch agencies that were created by congress you could easily see that you don't congress in it

its oversight. Authority could say that those record side to be managed, I dont know other than in the it, in the context of what happened with president Nixon in Watergate and then a few other issues that have come up in connection with some executive privilege. That's been litigated with the assumption that these were

it's our run. Our government records, but I dont know that any president has ever made the constitutional argument that the presidential records act is elite, is unconstitutional and that these records belong. They are the property of the president is, and I think it would be hard for a president to make that argument, because the thing that makes them presidential records is the fact that they are within the official duties of the government of the of the president. I mean they're, not things that the president owns when the president, when the president enters power, and I think to the extent the president has ownership interest in things, privacy interested things that's covered by executive privilege, so the presidential records act doesn't say that wholesale you could get it. You know anybody, including congress, can get access to any records in the government, but it's got

The right government official who asserts executive privileges a whole to do about whether former presidents have the right to asserted the supreme court suggested in the post war to gay cases that the that former presidents do maintain some quantum of executive privilege over records that would generated during the appeal currency, but we ve seen in connection with the january, sixty earrings, where the incumbent president and doesn't support the former, the assertion of executive privilege, the courts have found. There's not much privilege ere I mean they ruled against strong. So it's an interesting question and we may it may be one that we end up getting litigated and the reason I wanted to make the distinction rich is since we have to have a crime and the crime has to be classified information. He knows a lot of very cavalier talk being winged around about classified information in the

case, unlike the Hillary Clinton case, you are dealing with the only official in the united states government who suicide respond, honest on your lap: can declassify any help we want stood. Declassify said I was going to ask you next, so the trump people basically suggest that trumped sir either leaving Leaving the white house trump says our. You know that there are always Kim jong on matters. I love those and he d like his. the Kim letter jungle. First. Everyone bring those in the box or they're mine the snow. from the quran after we, we hosted them at at mount vernon, a crown, his wife love that molony loves at that. That's that's mine! Bring that over. You know this box over here. Mine catered this this

stop. Its declassify now saw mine said that they would. They basically suggest he wants it. It's declassified right and that's it. It works. He has the ultimate authority on this question, any procedures that the executive branch usual goes through with with people at the national security council stamp and staff and make it forty copies of everything blown away, though relevant. In fact, if you, if you want to stick honour their procedure. Overlap. Tromp was to do you, you got it backwards. It's the president's. Prerogative and he won't work. He waved along with seen some of this catch the child's best. They said this all the stuff concerned about he, he did declassified some form. Or another. What he make it that whole full that arguments were You know it's one of those things where you know when you gettin ready for arguments in the court of appeals

What, if you want to make sure some was prepared? You always s in the worst case scenario, question and worst case scenario question here: it really is what say we have like super secret nuclear information, which is what talking about. Are you really seriously saying that if everyone- He agrees that that super secret classified information should not be in a place. That's you know not protected the way. Government standards are that a president can just say it's declassified and that's the end of it and- and I think the answer Yes, that's exactly what we're saying what I'm saying and the reason for that reach is a site for my, my instinctive resistance to the progressive theory that the executive.

and should be compartmentalize and run by professionals and that the president is kind of just like a young, a ceremonial leader overall of it, but the that that thing runs. It's on and like the justice department, fbi there a separate branch of government in the intelligence community over here there are separate branch of government and the president has to comply with all these bureaucratic structures that have been. You know, they've grown up over the years and in fact you know, the theory of our constitutional government is only one person in the executive branch that has any power. I was just a scalia said in morrison the also in that famous descent. When the constitution says that the executive power is reposed in the present in a president of the united states, that means all of the executive power. There's only one official who had

executive power. That's president, everybody else as a delegate of the president's merrick garland has no power girl and gets to exercised president's powers is delegate. So if that's your constitutional theory- and that is the original is constitutional theory, then it is simply a fact that the president can declassify. Anything he wants now. You know when we say those things I think. Historically, that would not have been a controversial thing to say because we would have had some. So fundamental assumptions about what kinds of things president's would do, so If you had information that would be an Lee. You know perilous please dangerous to the country if it fell in the wrong hands? You wouldn't expect a president till the to handle it. Cavalierly

and I dont by the way, I don't think this is unique to tromp. I mean we found that there are a number of government officials that we found. The yellow truck may take this to a new level, as he's done with. You know any other things, but there's a lot of people, you don't I the post I did early this morning rich, I revisited commies, then fbi director call me some three of the evidence against Hillary Clinton and it was devastating with respect to how heat he addressed away she recklessly handle classified information and utterly irresponsible. It was and guess what we were talking about, rich exactly what the washington post was talking about. Last night, special access programme information, the highest mud, most sensitive intelligence in the government. So this is not like a trump thing, but the fact of the matter is that if the question is, can

the president, unilaterally declassify, think the answer is yes. Now it raises an interesting question of law that we ve never had to deal with. Before a question of fact, I should say witches, let's assume for argument sake that I'm right and as a matter of law he can declassify would have really wants. He still has to have done it. So the question is right: you know he can only declassify while he is still present. So if he has items down there that he decided to keep and he didn't declassify them. Then it is still classified. On the other hand, there is no set procedure that tells us how a president de classifies information. You know if he, if he says you know it's declassified, that's up to my mind, would be enough is enough to say if he thinks it should its declassified that you know like does he have to do something expressive of I don't know. I don't think we ve

a litigated down. We haven't. We have that the us, as listening to watching Lawrence Donnelly at night and they're, just jesse get an idea of what the other side was saying, and it had a couple very well well informed of national security, professor spa, specializing in actual scary long, when these guys made this point, if you, if you let it getting that prosecuting on the basis of the have to litigate this matter, the net then litigated how the president actually de declassify, As so, do you have any take em you? we don't know, but any take on how likely it is that the is stuff that would totally freak a sound, tromp was likely to have down there their show my cards, I'm I'm sceptical. I think that the stuff that's most sensitive is,

locked away somewhere and you're, not sending a white house usher to go, get it out it out of the triple locked safe. Without doubt someone trying to stop them and if they can't stop them immediately tying the washed and earth you know so systems are unlikely to me. I you know I, like the russia thing, like everything else, there's a lot. We don't know that acknowledged and if I am wrong I'll say I'm wrong. I followed the facts but under highly sceptical yeah, well, you're you're. I mean we're edging into my theory, which is that this really isn't about classified information. At all but let me along the lines of what you're saying ritual, but let me make two point one is, since I mention what the Washington post reported. I should also mention the counter case, which is that president trump vehemently denies the net that the nuclear weapons intelligence is involved here

and he said that that report, as he put it, I think it was a fake news up. It's a hoax just like the russia, russia, russia hopes that the young that's the quote from this morning, so trump denies it. Now. I have a feeling that it's gonna, be, you know It's not going to be this terrible worst case scenario of classified information that you can imagine, but probably going to be information. That would be embarrassing to trump that he an old in a way that he would keep it down there in a place where it shouldn't be that you know, I think it's it's the truth, be someplace the middle. But the second thing I want to say, which goes exactly, I think, to the point you are making is: let's say, we're, talking about what the washington post is talking about, a shoal access information which only a handful of people

in the government or read into and allowed to get access to, and it's totally need to know and it's a teeny, tiny group of people, okay and that's what they expected to find rich. There were thirty F b, I agents there. Do you think they read thirty f b, I agents into a special access program so that they could exit. due to search warrant thinking that that information was really gonna, be there. I don't think so. I mean I've seen I've I've seen how classified information gets handled, one it's handled correctly, and help her snickey. They are about making sure that somebody who doesn't have the clearance into doesn't have the need to know is not in a position where that person is able to see the thing that he doesn't have the right to seek, even if he has a security clearance, and I'm sure all these fbi agents who got sent there had security clearances of some

level and I'm sure you had some people were running the thing who had very high security clearances. But if you get it, in twenty or thirty fbi agents loose and tell him all right fellows go fine. You know, what's in the warrant, when you are opening up the possibility of his somebody who doesn't have the appropriate security clearance to see this top secret supersecret If you don't have special access, information is going to is going to get precisely that they're going to be exposed to something they're not allowed to see. I don't believe it maybe I'll be wrong to, but I don't believe it so any were forty minutes into the podcast and we're Finally, gonna work away around to your theory, and I've heard many people say it as as your theories our theory, I'm a I'm not totally sold on this one. I I get sold every time I talk to you, then I get unsold when when, when some other people express skepticism, but your belief, you know the question that has been asked by some people were changed between early june and now that would have create

is greater urgency to go after these documents have been there for two. going on almost two years and you know, are after way, and have a camera on this. Some of them apparently, and are not being used as cocktail napkins at a big party. Is it moral ago. Why all this You got a year ago rather and Your theory is well, yes of. Did change didn't, have anything to do with the status of those documents or concern necessarily over those documents. Being down there. You know rationing up to some entirely new level. The invite I around january six the demands for action for by the left and the media the january six commit hearings all that create pressure for garland to get going. On some sort of january six invest

irrigation, so yeah, that's so lines up. We got even eastman a search on an eastman. We have a surgeon search and this other guy, just a sky clark. We have scott perry, the congressman and right after the mara, lago raid epa comes and says whoops. You know by the way your phone is rs. So that's what's going on here, it's pre textual, as you alluded to earlier in our If you find other evidence of another crime, you don't you can take that too, and that's what they're sniffing around looking for yeah. I I think I still convinced this is right. Rich with a couple of caveats. One is to to accept my theory that this is pretext rule that doesn't mean that they're not interested in the national security creation. Of course they would like their back on. What I'm saying is that they have a closet agenda, making a january six case on Tromp which is more important to them than getting the national security information.

back timewise this lines up. It also method, wise lines up and lemon Let me explain what I mean by that you, essentially eastman and Jeff clark subpoenas that we're done not subpoenas, I'm sorry, search warrant that we're done at the end. Jill and this was right after you know the contract see that were where you are referring to here is there was a spear was news that broke in june not far from the time. The trump would have been meeting with the with these guys down and with these justice department, guys and John junius, but there was news that broke that garland. Had reaffirmed guide instead had originally been issued by a attorney general bar that if you get to investigate a presidential candidate, The attorney general should sign off on that now, why that had to be just a guidance bridge that, to me

I got you are putting out a member that says before you put your shoes on, you should put your socks on. I mean that's just seems like common sense, but far, and I think the reason that garland reaffirmed that is it's such common sense. Of course, the attorney general should sign off on it if, if you're going to investigate a presidential candidate, but the left got all spun up over it and they were all these stories about how the fact that he adopted trouble. The bars memo meant that he is not interested in doing the case on trump when they try to back out of it needs to passive that it's not are there the january six committee is making this big case on trump and the justice form is nowhere to be found. So, all of a sudden, we see this frenetic activity now in connection with the frenetic activity. This is it important. Detail. They don't want my say that europe is the subject of an investigation into january sex.

is you're, not ready to say that yet and if they say it in the context of doing search warrants, what that tells the world is, they are writing warrants to the united states courts. That say they have probable cause of a crime connected to JANET. three six that their looping all these guys into. So why wouldn't why? When they want to set out what, if he's under a political pressure to pursue generous such? Why wouldn't be too as benefit, because there would be because there were, if they're wrong, If there is the case is not ready and they're wrong, all the stuff that they put in the warrants again a bite them later, on and also they may not make the case, but by the vitamin. What sense. What do you mean? What what what how an item you? So I thought I'd run yeah if you one if you ultimately,

bring charges against trump and the theory of the case that you think you have now- You don't have a full understanding of the evidence, turns out not to be the theory that you pursue when you bring the case when you'd Colonel the role of this material and discovery, what the defence is gonna be able to say to the jury. Is that Government is just swimming around looking for a theory that they had a completely. You know they had one set of ideas that they brought to the court in order to get search warrants a them. By the time they indicted they had a completely different set. That was contradictory. You never go to paper until you sure about what your theory of the prosecution is, because everything you who is gonna, be turned over anything and discovery later on plus it would. It would then also be rich. There would be a lot of pressure on them if it became it. If it became clear now I happen to think it is clear.

at least to me that they are trying to build a case of conspiracy to obstruct the congressional count on on January six of the electoral votes and as as a companion to that conspiracy to defraud the government, and this is a this is the may be the major one that they're looking in the sense of that, as the supreme court is interpreted, that it's like any deceptive practices that prevents the government from performing its proper functions. So I think their theory is that I'm trot knew that he had lost the election, but what he did was he without a story that he had actually won the election and what they were trying to do.

was to undermine the popular vote in these contested states, they were trying to put pressure on election officials and especially republican legislators in those states to to substitute the the republican controlled legislatures vote of a president, presumably for trump. For the pop about four. By now. I think it think there was no chances was was ever gonna happen, but I do think that that's what that with the theory is Who are the people who were connected to that. You know too that effort that we know of eastman, who is like the architect of the

the legal strategy to get pants to discount to get vice versa depends to discount the electoral votes. Jeff Clark, who is just this department lawyer who was helping trump, try to put pressure? He try to try to put the justice department imprimatur on an effort to pressure the states, its reconvening and throwing out their popular vote and bit substituting a legislative determination that trump had won and who else Scott carry the can, horsemen from pennsylvania, who also got the, as you mentioned, got a search warrant the day after the rate, it moral logo he's the congressmen. who's, not only at this big meeting that trump has on December twenty. First, twenty twenty with freedom caucus guys from the hill where they tell em. You have to get the justice department to do more. To help us show fraud, you gotta get them

time or fraud allegations. Perry was among the strongest of the people making that argument and he's the one who wins reduces trump to Jeff clark and clark and trunk go from there and trump. Ultimately, eel almost tries to put Jeff Clark in his attorney general in and fire the front office that he had nearly reason he didn't was. He was persuaded that there be mass resignations at the justice department so. We know that they are looking at that very hard rich, because, aside from these search warrants, the other thing they ve done in a period of time from june on its they begun to put people in the grand jury, so they put mark short and with great Jacob his The lawyer four pence, those guys both want in the grand jury, but a couple of weeks ago last week they supported patsy bologna and Patrick fell, but the two top lawyers and trumpets white house.

Council's flood risk- all these guys are related to this very thing that they're looking at, which is the pressure. They did. The attempt to use the justice department as a hammer to pressure the states to change in electoral votes and to pressure pen, It's too not count the electoral about. That's the narrow thing there. Looking at that's the conspiracy case, they want to make on trump so right now, the laval this that they do. They do this raid on more elegant and they carry out boxes in boxes and boxes of stuff. We hear from all these agents

but the dub that showed up. Does anyone really think that they carried out boxes and boxes and boxes of classified documents? Maybe they did? I don't, and I think they took the. I think they were not particularly discriminating with what they took and they are looking for evidence that, can you know the big issue that they'll have to prove if I'm right about the conspiracy they're trying to make is that trump knew that the stop the steal stuff was nonsense because that's how they get- his good faith, but wrong belief that the election was stolen to his understanding that this was all a fraudulent scam. So that's where they have to get in their case, and I just would ask people if it makes sense to you if I'm right and trump, is the target of this- the he's the main operator in this conspiracy. Do you really think it's possible that they would do or a bunch of january six related, so

Pain, is and search warrants before moral argo and contain do it. After mar a the morrow I'll. Go search, happens in the middle of all this and the only thing that doesn't have anything to do with january six is the search for they do on the main guy there trying to prosecute Anja were six. I. I can't believe that I came we understood this is on my skin. is about to Syria. We ve talked about the sunlight ethic, damn damagon I just had to skim. The end of his you see had yesterday about not not believing it what the fbi is saying, but not not buying this necessarily. Now. Your theory is out trouble, verbal guy, you know what's Likelihood of him, especially something so sensitive, having written anything down and kept it You know there is a story earlier this week emanating from now

he had ever man the near times report were access reported, though these images of of torn up documents in the toilet health off no, the statistics, that that would be more likely fate, for you know if trump scribbled any now in an I don't believe any of this, but the sydney says we can. We can get them to believe. You know as well as well, that did, it is, can be ripped up, an intrusion into a toy So what would you make that that pushed back, that their wooden wouldn't be anything the defined yeah? What I, I yeah, I think the world of our work, badly damaged, laughlin and will where I've parted company with Dan is in two ways. One is, I think the dan is thinking of this in terms of whether he sees it.

central crime. Here ITALY is that's it. You know some mighty discussions with them a bill along those lines and I'm not I'm not doing that, my what I'm trying to do is put myself in the shoes of the progressive left of centre justice department. That's under a lot of heat from the democratic base to bring charges. you're? So I'm not talking about a case that I would bring I'm talking about occasion that they would perfect and I'm not talking about it is the damn would break was I think dan like bees would not see a crime here, I'm so I'm trying to think of what's the parameters of what they would do, not what I would do cause. I don't think there's a car I'm here. Unless you can show the tromp was involved in violence. I don't think there's a crime worth worth brain the set. Thing: riches, it's all well and good to say the trump doesn't use email and he doesn't go to paypal and lots of here's the problem. He was president of the united states, so everybody who deals with them rights notes like what was the mulder report made out of the military

But what made report was like four hundred pages of notes from the white house councils office, because every time they went in to talk the tribe, they stay rope like pages and pages notes, and then they would go back and right. You know filling the gaps and make even more notes. What's the best piece of evidence to justice department has right now that we know of that trot knew this whole thing was bs trump. As a phone call in late december, twenty twenty with rose and integrity who, within that the acting but attorney general and deputy attorney general at the justice department. And rose and at a certain point, gets exasperated and says to tromp you know: look we can't just switch flip alights, which create fraud and fine fraud and change the result of an election and trunk gets equally exasperated and he says to run

I'm not asking you to do that just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congressmen. That's the most damaging piece of evidence. They have now trump didn't write that down. He didn't make notes that he said that he didn't record it. How do we do know? He said it, he was talking to people and they wrote it down contemporaneously. So the fact that he he's, not a guy who goes to paper. Does it mean nobody around them was vote a paper and you dont the reason that this in this case in California. That they wanted to get all these emails. That eastman has almost none of those I think there may be out of the hundred and eleven that they ve litigated so for it does actually Thousands that, though, ultimately, have to make a decision on, but there were a hundred eleven that were involved the first round. I think, there's only on email, mail. The trunk maybe have even been copied on. I don't think he participated at all, but it's there

we damaging a lot of the emails when you read the judge's opinion, a lot of the emails, a very damaging cause eastman, is having contemporaneous conversations with trump and then he's telling people to do stuff. So it's obvious where it's coming from. So I just think that you know the fact that this guy doesn't go. Did you take it from somebody? Who's done investigations, and I hate talk about way because it sounds so arrogant. But you don't win cases. You don't make cases with smoking. there's no perry mason that doesn't happen in real life. What will you make a big case? In the reason, a big cases is very hard to defend against. It's like a hundred little things that may be seemingly disconnected, but you man to weave them together and when you first look at something it doesn't look like it is knocking gun, but then, when you see how it fits with five other things, it's something they can't explain why?

go to paper is out like investigatory term dealing with mobsters or what? What what what's good paper, got well go to paper means like do you write de memorialize stuff, I we had a guy understand the pizza can actually case and was at nineteen. Eighty five, eighty six. and I remember I was just a kid- I was like the the young guy on them on the team and I remember this guide- to be gas via by one the defence lawyers. You know: what's your proof that that you don't so and so, and the mafia said that this guy, should you don't get head or this these drugs should be solved and the shuttle looked at it. Like very quizzically. He said nothing is written down in the mafia decision. So that's what the that's! Why I first started here, go to paper alot noticed that when we went to it when we need stuff from our writers inner over deadlines, I'd be if you gonna paper, yet you gonna

So any we have two minutes left before you have to get out here, sir I'll just do that the two big questions and you you allocated time area, however much you want. The second are taking as I as I speak here, So you think trample be indicted with anything having to do with anything. Related to classify darkness in his hand, a line and do you think you'll be indicted by the feds related anything related J and were sex? if you will not be denied indicted in connection with classified documents and he will be indicted on a conspiracy to observe right. try right the united states and obstruct the electoral count. Yes,

added by the way I should say again I mean I think I think I said six chances and turn the first time. You asked me this and I'm I'm up to more than seven, and I I think I want to make clear I don't think they should do this non, that satisfied as a crime, and I think the downside for the country of bringing a non violent crime case under circumstances where, You know I mean you basically going to be. You can have to prove to things you have to state of mind, which I think is gonna, be a hill to too high for them to get over it. Also, it would be a matter of criminalizing a frivolous legal theory which is a very dangerous, road for this country to go down, I don't think we want to live in a world where we do that. But you know I think they're gonna do it

right. Well that we have it. That's all the time you have this week. This part gas been produced by the incomparable. Sarah shitty thanked her one for listening and thank you anymore. Mccarthy. Thanks rich