Are you someone who enjoys a good glass of wine, but is never sure just want to get in What's your in a unified and take the guesswork out of wine by signing for the national review wine club. All of our wines is selected by a team with more than one hundred and fifty years of collective experience, spying, judging and making wine. We we through the thought of wines out there to select the very best of the best and deliver it straight to your door, all that and unbeatable price. not only that the wine It is also a great way to support our valuable conservative journalism here at national review, apportioned every order goes to helping us grow, our team and editorial impact, and this note I'm better than today, I introductory I shall delivers for our hands selected wines straight to your door, but only anti nine. Ninety nine so had

but a national review wine club dot com today and get ready to kick back with an exquisite bottle of wine in the comfort of your home. Welcome to the Mccarthy report, the pot guess where I rich larry discuss with Andy Mccarthy, the latest legal and national security issues the sweet. What else the trump? indictment. If for some for some reason you not already following a sun stringy service by the way you everywhere from Spain fighter itunes and please give this podcasting nanny mccarthy, the glowing indeed gushing, fives our views that they deserve. On itunes and now, with further. Do I welcome to this very podcast cast through the miracle riverside, none other than incredibly rich? How are you got any. How are you? Ok,

We're talking a little bit about this. I watch the the The whole love met, game not against the yankees and I was so aggravated at the end of it that, even though they won I couldn't, but I have to say I hadn't seen anyone steel home and about a zillion years so that it's like a pure, a pure steel of home by I calf that that was awesome, yeah victory regard yeah have every year every ten fifteen days is, there's gotta be one. So so you do. The trump indictment also had some other stuff, but let's let's get into this one. Obviously it's been a huge national I guess we ve with seen see. The indictment men heard arguments back and forth so get give us years? Three thousand foot.

The arsenal diving. Well, I'm not surprised to see it and you know we've been, we ve been giving a range of likelihood that it would happen, and I think at one point I was like a leathern at a ten because he knew not it, but only because the prosecutors- and this was, I think, rich. This was even before I went back to see how early I had. I had written or said something like that, and it was like september or so probably less than a month after the the search, and it wasn't. The reason was because even the justice department, prosecutors word, doing all of the things that you do only when you're trying to make a case- and I thought in particular that things like giving immunity to two people like cash patel, and you know that that sort of stuff

justice department only gives immunity to people there really trying to make a case against somebody higher up. The chink was otherwise you don't like to give a munifi to anyone. It gives them basically out a wash. They can't be. prosecuted and then the other thing that occurred to me back then rich was remember, remember how hard d o j one the litigation over the special master and- and how was I thought they very very aggressively- argued in the district court and the court of appeals in again in a way that you go after it one year when you're trying to make a case. So I think it's not all that surprising that this day

it happened but where I think I I was wrong about it and I think actually this will end up being to the detriment of the of the prosecution, just because the timing and everything else, but I really thought that that smith might indict this lean and mean with only the obstruction, charges and and basically leave the espionage act stuff on the side, not because it's not serious. But if his intention is to try to get to trial within, say the next six months, I don't see how he can conceivably do that with the s in our jackson counts? I think the only way that you would have had a realistic chance of doing that, and it even this may not be a bit and realistic because of all the other things on trumps dance guard. But I think if you really want to get this case to trial first, you make it an obstruction case, and I really expected it to be an obstruction case. And when I read the indicted

I I have to say I read. I thought this is not what I expected and I'm not saying that the obstruction is not central to the story, but I really expected it to to put it this way. I expected it to be an obstruction case with a classified information kind of sidelined, and I think really it's an it's a classified information case with with a big obstruction poland, but but he really did do the classified information counts in a way that I think, is number one going to create big problems, getting the case to trial and number two and I dont, politically it almost convinces you that they're not consulting with each other but seems to be the politically it makes binds classified information situation, much more fun

and center than would otherwise, even though, as you pointed out smith is, is making us implicit, distinct, he's not directly addressing the vine case, obviously, but that the trumps offence was was wilful and not just careless or reckless. So that's their story it, but you know this does one thing of of like had a principled distinction in your mind and then the other problem of like. Can you execute that in a way that the public buys it, and I just think with trump out on the cap a trail every single day, hammering away at Biden, classified information situation and also reached you know, frankly, with with what we know of Biden, classified information situation includes that he had

documents from his time in the senate, and we all know now, because we ve you- don't we ve been through this a million times senators, unlike national security officials in the executive branch, or not on duty in a national security, since twenty four seven and as a result, they don't set ups gifts in the home, of even the head of the descent foreign relations committee. You know an important committee that deals with a lot of national security, stuff and and classified stuff If you're a senator or a reprieve, in the house, and you want to look at classified information. You have to go to a skiff. capitol hill and you're not allowed to take the stuff out? It's not like you know, you're, like vice president pence, talked about how they begin nightly. His military attache would bring classified information package for him to review at night, and then they put it in the burn beg you know they have at all

protocol for it that doesn't happen in the senate and the reason I I I delve on that for a second is, if he had stuff from his time in the senate, it ha. How could it not be willful that he had it? I mean it's not like it's like you could see, help pence would have ended up with stuff and even Biden when he was vice president, where they brought stuff was home when he was vice president and somehow it didn't get in the barn bag or didn't you know, you could see how that could could happen. It shouldn't happen and its careless for it to happen, but see how it could happen. I don't see how he has stuff from the senate and his house unless it unless it's wilful So let's go to some of the trumped fences. Could I'm sure people are thinking are wondering what to make of some of these are these obviously selective

execution and it's it's hard to argue. You know are hard to see how it makes sense for hillary to have gotten a pass and and for trump to get nailed to the wall. But, as is you pointed out. This is more a don't indict me argument, rather than after you, ve indicted me argument, and There is also a double edged sword here, because the the activity of it. The hurry non indictment dingy supplied to tramp. It applies to everyone else, has ever been charged with these things, and that's also going to work with trump they're going to say. Oh you say, selective selective here is. john doe, who spent eight years in jail. Doing basically the same thing. You did yeah, that's exactly right, I mean, but look I think that the selective prosecution argument was not gonna fly with the biden, special counsel and the Biden justice department, obviously, but it's

powerful argument for why you shouldn't be charged, and it I think it's got a lot of political residence on the campaign. Trail he'll, keep pounding it and it it's obviously making a difference in the way people talk. To tears of justice and that sort of stuff. Absolutely I is, is it has you'd near this. This conception that has near universal this way of looking at it has almost near universal sun and there, and I think it and it will continue that will continue to intensify because this is not going away and he's a candidate, so he's gonna be banging away at this every day. However, as a legal issue. It's really not much of a defense, because if you make a selective prosecution motion as a motion to dismiss the indictment prior to trial- and your case is not compared as you just described, it he's not going to be able to tee this up as here's what they

with hilary and hears what happened to me. It's going to be your saying, you're selectively, prosecuted, meaning the government never brings these charges and that's just not true he's gonna be compared to the pool of people, who get charged with similar espionage act, crimes any end its it. It's not worth discussing, whether people get charged with obstruction right people get charged with obstruction well of all the time. So it's a loose legally price the trial and then add trial. I note that now this goes to who got the case right. The judge here is going to be very important in front of a much more friendly judge here in a lean cannon than he probably would have gotten in washington, and there's a lot too to be discussed about that, because we got rulings to deal with an all that stuff.

And a lot less is going to come down to how much will a lean can and let him put hillary on trial in his trial, and I think that the answer to that is not as much as the native, probably not nearly as much as he wants or needs, because the jury ultimately in the case is going to be instructed that the only issue for you is: has the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that trump committed the crimes he's charge with and its nodded fence that somebody who may have committed analogous offences was not prosecuted. So that being the case, since it's not a defence, most judges will keep most of the it's out now he'll be able to get some evidence and because you be able to cross examine, you know some of the agents in this case and ask him about how the Hillary Clinton case was handled.

That's gonna be relevant, so he'll get some of it in, but no judge. I think even adjudged its inclined to be sympathetic to his possession or at least more sympathetic than say, the judges he was dealing with in the district of columbia. The no judges gonna. Let him turn the trial into a hillary Clinton trial he's just knock it to be able to do that So? What about the presidential records act? This is indefensible, trumped defenders are making that he was allowed. Their various versions of the basically use is allowed to sit through stuff. Have it for some at a time after his present decide what was personal kurds and and belonged to him and the government had no no right to have her reversing the common conception of it and there's serious people who are advancing again. A version of this already, Whilst we journals referred to it a couple times and editorials our inertia, has talked about it alive. You, you don't find this committee will know I

I don't because I think they're all skipping past something that's fairly like crucially important, that they're not directing people's attention to which is in the in the first section of the presidential records act, there's a definition section, and one of the definitions, of course, that you would expect is, what's a presidential record and explicitly in the def, of presidential record. What is excluded is agency records and when and they you know- refer you to other definitions- federal love. What an agency is and what a record is, but it's obvious what agency records are so what we're dealing with in the trump case are. Basically, records of. U s spy agencies, the defence intelligence agency

a geo spatial agency. The an essay cia, the fbi's counter intelligent side, those of the agent these that we're talking about and what word what we're dealing with here is. They are national defence reporting. Those documents agency documents are expressly excluded from coverage under the presidential records act. What the presidential goods act is directed at in the main, is documents and other but other similar stuff, like tape recordings and the like there are basically generated by the president and the white house staff for purposes of the port, with the president's data day, governance of the

tree- and you can understand why this is what it's about, because this is an act remember that was passed in nineteen. Seventy eight in the wake of the watergate scandal and what it was mainly about was Nixon's tapes, the personal tapes that nixon head generated. So it was never ever about agency reports and as a result. I don't see how they even get into the ball park of saying that these presidential record such that the presidential records act would even apply, but even if they could read what a president is allowed to keep under the presidential records act is personal records and there's a

away in the statute, where you distinguish, what's a personal record from a presidential record, but its clear that when you look at what the definition of personal records is, what they're talking about are things like diaries and journals? This is you know. Agency reporting is so obviously not what you're talking about when you're talking about persons all records it just seems to be frivolous that were even discussing it so number one. I dont think you even get into the ball park of whether these presidential records and cause they're, not their are agency records and number two Even if you were soon for argument sake, what you'd have to do a big stretched to do that? The presidential records that covers this information is clearly not the kind of stuff that he's allowed to keep. So the argument there making is

basically twofold. Is that their considering? This is the escape hatch. What the presidential records access is its information, that's prepared by the president and for the president, so the there's an eye dear of like incoming information from agencies, son, they're trying to say is that mean that opens the door to agency records being covered under the act, because there there, given to the president for purposes of briefings and and the like, that doesn't work, because the statute not only talks about agency records not being covered, but also this provisions about like copies of agency records and and all that stuff, which also aren't covered and The other thing that here's? What's what commonly happens, rich we're an agency record, can become a presidential record let's

the cia gives a briefing to the president and they give him a document. He makes notes on it. keep an outdated and we see that are in a couple of places in the indictment. Ok, we'll now his notes on that document or presidential records, even if the agency record in the first place wasn't his note was, but there's no way on gods greener that that's ever a personal document that he gets to keep. So I think either way the the objective of both the federal law provisions that govern agency records and the provisions that govern the presidential records act. The objective of these statutes is too, is basically to make documentation of even ministerial and ceremonial government activity, public record, rather than private record and with respect to agency

Do you know what I keep hearing like? I heard I guess it was mortal of in when I was so watching on numb fox or someplace. was he was on and what he was saying is people don't to stand it's the constitution. He's the executive he's the only one with executive power- and you know I think mark is very good on the constitution. I I agree with him that the executive is the only one with power in the executive branch, but I think the point that I would respectfully suggest that the point that he's missing is that we're not talking with agency records we're not talking about purely the executive power of the president. These are agencies that are aided by congress. There authorities come from congress, they are underwritten, their activities are underwritten by taxpayers who get and its congress that makes their funding decisions

and congress is entitled to conduct oversight over their activities, which means that both agency officials and congress have to have access to their records, which they can't do If any executive official, including the president, could willy nilly say that's mine, I own that it's it's preposterous to say that a president owns the stuff and as a result, not surprisingly, even though these records, even though these statutes have been on the books for decades. No president has ever suggested, That agency records are his personal property. What about the Clinton sock drawer, a case that referred about yes, this is this is a related, but this is related to the presidential records act, but it's it's a fine point on it. That trump has been stressing and, I think, he's gotten bad advice. Frankly, on this you know since the young, the Clinton socked your case,

is that the name of it in the district of warmbier was judicial. Watch again, the national archives in records administration nera. So it's a two thousand twelve case now. First of all, what people need on this and about this, for all the young, the way the trumpets talking about it. You would think this was like brown since is the board of add or or you don't morebury versus bateson or one of the great precedents. In our time this is a lower court. Its district court case by a d c district court judge Amy Bernie, Amy, Berman jackson. I don't think so put particularly well done decision, but it's a lower court case. It was never. It was never reviewed by the dc circuit, let alone go up to the to the to the supreme court. So I dont think it's me

if a precedent to begin with. But it's like apples and oranges compared to what we're talking about here. So what why they call it the Clinton sock case, or at least why some people call at that and trump has now taken to calling it. That is, president Clinton, as as I think we discussed last week, which cause you You know more about the historian that I did this. The taylor ranch right, pray della branch, they're gonna, make it their they do. What record interviews and Clinton also records in kind of watergate nixon style. Some of them that go on in the white house which become incorporated into this like set of discussions that he and the historian have they. They end up doing seventy nine tapes, its with an eye toward

doing a history of the Clinton administration, which ultimately does get done in two thousand eleven. Two thousand and twelve like that. So anyhow, They make seventy nine tapes. Wild Clinton is president and Clinton. Does it want to incorporate them as presidential records? I think he probably should have. It looks like to me like a lot of it might have been presidential records, but he instead keeps it in a sock drawer. Now I think when, from first started. Talking about this is the way he described it was. The Clinton hid the tapes in a sack, and then you have a man the wider. I dont think that was what it was. He Keith put them in a sack drawer because he didn't want the white house executive staff to incorporate them, as they are getting the way that presidential records get recorded. Is you don't they dont depend on the president to do this ministerial stuff right? That's that's! What he's got

therefore, and some of the parlour responsibility of the executive staff is to make sure that the stuff that is supposed to be reserved preserved as presidential records gets preserved. Member rich. When we were ought we were talking about the poor pack sip bologna this? This was like a few of months ago, in our era in our part gas. But you know one of the things when when ever, time, sip aloni in the two months between election day and and January sex they kept. challenges. People kept Helen, sit bologna, you know, he's got stuff up there and these boxes of that we have to get back those who, like presidential records, they ve, never been fined. And the problem that simple bologna had was was so angry item over that the over the stolen election that there.

no bandwidth for rub for plone, to say, oh by the way that stuff that's our stuff. You gotta give us that back so, but that's what staff is supposed to do this supposed to make sure that the presidential records get accounted for so these seventy nine tapes there in the grey zone right there at their recordings of activities that are obviously port of of the presidency, and some of it is not just in the nature of aid, memoir or diary or or journal or something along those lines, because Clinton, apparently tape recorded stuff. In addition to tape, recording converse it's a weather historian, but he decided to keep everything and he took it with him and then

what happened was nine years later, when the obama administration comes in judicial watch, finds out, I guess from reading of branch's account of some of this. They find out that these tapes exist. So they say we want the tapes, so they do have freedom of information act and it turns a request and it turns out. The government doesn't have the tapes and they say Clinton has the tapes because he never turned the tapes in he decided they were personal records. So what happens? Is judicial watch tries to make narrow, reclaim the tapes from Clinton so that that that judicial watch can then get them under the freedom of information act. So this is the case that ends up in front a judge, jackson and she decides basically that there is no provision in the in the federal

in the presidential records act that empowers nera either to go to the president and physically retrieve stuff or, as we discuss before, There's no criminal sanctions in the presidential records act that you can threaten to pay. The lie, somebody under the law either the civil law of the criminal law if they don't comply with the axe provisions. So what she basically held was that now I had no power to get the stuff now. The way that dumb the way. The trump and one of the judicial watch guys who wrote an up ad in the wall street journal about this this week, the way they described. This is a little but a sleight of hand. They say that the judge this the judge held that the government was out of luck. They couldn't get the stuff back and that's not what happened? What?

he held, was that nera had no power to get it back and that the political facts of the case are that in two thousand and nine when judicial watch try to get this back. This was the beginning, the obama administration the iter any general was eric holder who had been bill? Clinton's deputy attorney general bill Clinton is the wife of the sector, husband of the secretary of state, you have a democrat the administration, the justice department, has no interest in given a hard time to a to term republic. Deb democratic press. At the start of a new democratic administration when they haven't, for welcoming margin in congress right so itself, Now I had any interest in going to congress to see if they could get Clinton to surrender the types and joy, jackson, is an obama appointee who is who is by the way shown

hostility to trump such that it is fair to ask if all the facts with the same in the president here was trump rather than Clinton. Would she have come out differently? I think that's a it's a perfect. fair question. But in any event, the issue here is that the democratic? It's not that the government couldn't have tried to get these documents back with these tapes back from Clinton. It's that nobody who had the power to do it was robustly interested in taking any action the justice department wasn't gonna, do it congress wasn't gonna, do it, it wasn't going to happen and what jackson found is that nera had no power to do it, and then she also found, I think, she's completely wrong about this, which she found that pleasantly Clinton had to have decided that these were personal records rather than presidential records, and as between now

and the president during the term of the president's presidency. Now I can't second guess the president on the determination of what is personal records verses. What is presidential records, so this is the part of the case, the trumpets seizing on what he's. sickly reading that case to say is that he personally could decide what was personal and what was a presidential record and that's the end of it, and he decided that these things were personal records that he took them with him now. First of all, again there not they're not even cover

under the presidential records act, was their agency records, but the thing is to the extent that Jackson's decision is being read to say that president's can completely ignore what the presidential record act says: she's just wrong, or at least she's being interpreted wrong. The presidential records act has a whole procedure that the President's supposed to go through in order to designate something as personal records and there's no evidence that that trump ever did that all he did was. Pile stuff in boxes that nobody ever got to see it. He left and he's not supposed to he's supposed to go through it and he's supposed to say this is mine. This is yours and if he says his mind and that end the archives disagree. Theirs.

Cg, where the archives get to go to congress, to see if they are interested in keeping the rep. So there's a whole thing that he's supposed to go through that he didn't go through and the thing is first of all, you know again. Jackson's opinions, a lower court opinion. I dont know that. I don't think we should assume that any court would feel They were bound by it and it's very hard for trumped to take the position that, having completely flouted the terms of the presidential records act, he's now entitled to the protection of the president records act in this cockamamie determination that agency intelligence reporting is his personal property. So I just like it's a loser argument. So far final thing on the various defences lindsey grand has been very prominent on this one espionage act.

charging him under the espionage act. You're saying Donald trump is a by. You must be insane. You must be insane. I agree, yeah lindsey, you got it. You know that thing about the thing about this kind of what you meant is you know it's here's the thing that makes people not, or at least what makes me nuts lindsey graham's a smart guy and he's a lawyer and he's read statutes before, and he knows what what how this works. So the sb nah jack, was enacted by under woodrow wilson, world war, one era, nineteen, seventeen and it us into federal law. a series of criminal offences, there's probably a dozen of them in the statute. Once you break out the subsections and the parts of the subsections

some of the set of some. First of all, I should say the legislation from nineteen seventeen virtues called the espionage act, so we have got into the habit of calling. The crimes that are that are codified, espionage accounts, but when these law, when These crimes went into federal law, the the provision thereunder, which is section seven. Ninety three of the of the federal criminal code is not called the espionage jack. It's called transmitting national defence information, so the word espionage does not appear even in the title of of attitude and then, if you look at the charging language of the statute, which is so people are to stand by that time, it'll of a statute, does it being anything it doesn't have any effect it

just spin that washington puts on things so that that they make you think of like the inflation reduction act, they want you to think that that actually reduces inflation. The afford correct. Everybody knows what the game is here. They they put like these names on these statutes. The only that matters to a court- and this is particularly so in the car- the law where, where there's due process requirements that that dumb statutes be clear in terms of what prohibited the only thing that matters in the interpretation or application of the statute is the language of the statue, the language of its provisions. The title is irrelevant so in this series of crimes that was ushered in nineteen nineteen, seventy two seventeen and has been codified and re codified over the years. There is about a dozen crimes at the vote.

top, there are crimes that are in the nature of espionage, which is the idea of you know, you're a mole, but like a government official who bores into the into the government, you steal national defence secrets and you give them to enemies of the united states right, that's the classic espionage situation, and there are crimes like that. In the act, but then you go down and they go down and seriousness as you go down the scale so at the very. Bottom of the scale are crimes which can be committed by government officials or former government officials who had or have authorized

possession of national defence information and then miss handle it in some way. So, for example, if you, but what trumps george with is wilfully retaining national defence information and failing to surrender it upon a demand by a government government official who had I too have it. That's what he's george with remember from the hilary I'd say. I actually think by the way. That's also what hilary should have been charged with, but there is one other provision underneath which is the the famous gross. What is it gross negligence, one with hilary. So that's a provision that says a government official who's been trusted with national security information who miss handles it in a group.

lee negligent way and what they mean by miss handles it is remove it from its place of safe keeping store it in a place where it's not. The words are not allowed to be kept allowed it to be exposed to someone who doesn't have a right to see doesn't have the security clearance to see it or nay or negligently, allow it to be lost, stolen destroyed, abstracted and so on. So those are the crimes that are at the vote at the very bottom of it there not what you would think of his espionage offences and that space we. What trump has been charged with and the only other thing rich. I think that's worth saying that about this, because we need push back at a young at a point that Jim call me made about this in connection with the hilary case. He I,

thought ridiculously. I could- and I am saying this because I responded to it at the time while he was testify, he ridiculously said that you know there's a constitutional problem, using the criminal law in a negligence context, You know in the criminal law we require in ten knowledge, wilfulness and and the like. So my first question to Jim, who, besides being fbi director, had been a federal prosecutor for e, was had he never heard of negligent homicide before, because It's. It's criminalized, and while fifty states, and even in federal law, to some circumstances, but the other thing is the reason that you can bring a case based on negligence in the classified information context, is you're dealing with a very specific

category of offender, that is, national security officials who have been granted trusted access to classified information and given security clearances on, The promise that they will abide by the rules of safe keeping them and training on how to do that. So the reason that can apply. Negligence against them is because, in this context, its appropriate to do that, and because we're dealing with information of such a grave nature that, if it fell into the wrong hands, it could be catastrophic for the country, so that's why those offences around the books. So, let's, let's move to eric which took the rich? Can I just I just want to mention one other thing, because this has come up a bunch of times and it goes to what I think a lot of people are interested.

Like. How does this all had? Is the sole collide with them with the election and- and I think, having now looked at this one of the consequence. I think of the speed of the case against trump more of a net of a stick of a classified information cases. thought it would be rather than an obstruction case? Is I don't see how it gets to trial before the november elections? Because what happens in a classified information case? Is you have to litigate before trial? What classified information is admissible in the case so just to give people an idea about this. I had as I I headed discreet, classified information issue in the blind showcase, much less than what's gonna be in this case involving

Pakistan's role was in in afghanistan during the mujahideen war against the russians. It took us eighteen months the litigate that, at the end of which I read, I think a nine lines stipulation to the jury, in order to hammer at all. That was one little discreet piece of evidence with respect to one defend and out of wealth and that's how it how long it took in front of a joke by the way is very efficient so just asked promotions in it. Just takes a while Then he, while using eyes. Yes, the thing is that that is governed a provision of law which is its that that complicated, but it's called the Sipa or the classified information procedures act. And what has to happen is the government to tell the defence. What classified information is it intends to put in the defence, then has to tell

the government and the prosecution. What class I'd information it intends to offer in the trial and defence always claims that they need more, not because they really think it's exculpatory, but because they knew The government doesn't wanna revealing and they try to make a record that they were prevented from making their defence. So anyway, judge, has to rule prior to trial, what's relevant and what's admissible. So at that point, judge says this classified information has to come in in order for the defence to be able a bank their defence. The government has two choices: they can declassify it, so it can come into the trial or they can offer a substitute that has to that can withhold the classified information,

but it's gotta give the defence enough that they can make whatever jury arguments they would have been entitled to make if the actual classified information came and if the government decides that that's not an acceptable outcome like they don't wanta declassify. The information in the courts is that there is no adequate substitute. The way that the way that the statute of sipa the way it divides, the responsibilities that are attended here is the executive branches them esther of classified information. The court is the master of the litigation, so the attorney general This is the only instance of this that exist in the lie believe the attorney general can order the court. Not to allow the class information into the trial and if these, ernie general. Does that, then the court can has to say

hey. I have to honour what the attorney general says, but then these counts can't be drive, or this indictment has to be thrown out because he can't get a fair trial or, that has to be worked out prior to trial, and you have to get cleared trump right now apparently having trouble getting lawyers here. It's not like he can just get any lawyer. So this case these have to be lawyers who can be cleared to get access to classified information, which means it and I have to go through a piece. So to get cleared, so I just don't see how on earth. This is why I thought smith might make this an obstruction cases I did try it around the the classified information stuff, but once you get the classified information stuff into this case, I dont know how on earth he gets to trial prior to the november elections, and I would say that rich, even if trump didn't have four or five other cases on his plight than they have to schedule around this

Let's see his school calendar on all stuff. So let's go to Biden it's related, but you bad and the near post say well what we now know the basic tourism of the kind of information trump had or documents he had. You know how many would ass level, general topics Why don't? We know that about the Biden documents, what what pop public interest I would say we can know this about troppo, can't know about Biden, and you think congress right pushes point yeah. I think so I mean you know I was I was there surprise rich reading the indictment, because, usually what the government says is we can't even whisper what any of this information is about, because even putting out that out, there would be threat to national security. You know they would say, like I expected them to say things like if we told you what this about them. That would entice people die

tomorrow, log out to to sort of rude around and see if they could find the missing class of item you, don't you can imagine the kinds of arguments they'd make about why they couldn't ellis instead in the indictment, they have a pretty good description of what the Of what the documents are. I mean they're, not telling us chapter and verse which they obviously can, but we do get information that they talk about. U S, military The vulnerabilities and attack plans against the you know, countries and contingency plans. You know if x happens, then we're going to do Y, all kinds of stuff that that I was very surprised to see them describe even in in a kind of a cryptic way. It with reason to each document. They give us the security level of you know not only whether it was secret top secret or confidential, but also were told about the that their special access programmes, or rather limited access to that makes it a very tight need to know kind,

thing, so they laid that all out with respect to each document. So we could see how serious it was, and then they told us with respect to each document how long tromp head possessed it in an unauthorized way. I don't see any good reason why they can't tell us that, with respect to Biden, there's nothing in the nature of like how could they is in the eye and tell us either. We can't tell you that, because it would, it would harm national security, or we can't tell you that, because it would hurt our pending investigation. We're told that Biden's cooperating in the investigation and if they could put this information out with respect to trump It doesn't seem to me that there is any good reason why we don't get an accounting with respect to bide, and so I think congress should be all over this, and I think we should also take this as a lesson that

You know the government's tellin us all the time that they can't tell us this or that, because it would harm national security or undue pending investigations. I think this thing or to be like exhibit one about how we oughta just suspect that they are lying to us when they tell us that they can't tell us something so and another real but here is so gradually icily major folks, throughout his career on whistleblowers, and we have this, suppose it Biden whistleblower or this Biden informants, who, on the f b, I produced a form about who says Biden has been bribed. The current gradually their seventeen recordings of phone calls with hunter. fifteen of them into a with Joe himself about is shady or corrupt or or frankly, criminal,

dealing which we make this one. Well, I think, you'll see. We ve already seen rynch that people are like sort of getting out, their skis already on this, so to be clear, what this is is there is a document which we've talked about called the form f d, ten twenty three, which is the f b. I standard form for an interview with a confidential human source and in the

warm it and the informant is being told by this person who we ve. Now they reporting at least as identified as mccullough low chaskey, who is they head of barbarism of the founder of bourgeois, who, you know, hired hunter Biden and hunters business partner on his board, despite the fact that they didn't have any experience that was relevant, paid them go gobs of money when Joe Biden just happened to be making policy in ukraine or with the point man for obama's policy on ukraine, so we are told that this information from the informant comes

from the inform and hearing it from slow chap sky and slow sky also told him that he had the seventeen recordings as an insurance policy with respect to to Joe and hunter Biden, and he further said that he may have paid them as much as ten million dollars, but he thought that it was so byzantine the way that they arranged the payments and the number of accounts and shell companies and the like that were involved in it that it would take ten years for anybody to to figure out how the hell this all happened. So that's what we're hearing but just to be clear, because we got people in congress who were demanding that the f b I surrender these tapes. So we can hear them, there's no indication that we have the tapes. What we've heard is dead, slow chatzky, says

ask them and told this whoever this inform it is now. The disturbing thing is that, when the fbi member, this is this whole thing that we ve been talking about four weeks about jamie comber, the head of the oversight committee, subpoenaed being Chris, way to turn over this document- and they have this big to do where ray almost gets held in contempt over his refusal first to turn it over and then you know the proposal that the the congress has to come to the f b. I to see it and all this other stuff that the that congress found unacceptable. So, finally, if you remember last monday, not this monday, the monday before f b. I came to capitol hill and presented them with this ten twenty three parenting when they read it, this part of it about the tape recordings was rejected so

gradually goes crazy over that, because he's got whistle blowers who have told him what's in the entire document and that's how he knew the about the recordings when they confronted the fbi, the f b, I said yes, there's a reduction and we did reject that part of it out now. They insist that they did that to protect the identity of the informant I'm suspicious about that, but can't discount the possibility. Let me just like flowed out one hypothetical and understand everyone. This is a hypothetical. I am now basing it on any information. I'm just trying to explain how this works. What if it turns out that the confidential human source is actually slow. Chaskey right, if you tat, if you, if remove the reduction- and it said I have these seventeen recordings, it would be obvious who the confidential human source was. So sometimes when the f b, I re they reject because it

They showed you that information that it would make it perfectly obvious where the information was coming from and therefore they ve compromising informants ident. I'm not again, I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm trying to explain why they reject the stuff. Now the reason I I'm not ready yet to jump all over the world. Are, even though I seem to do that every week is, do you remember in the negotiations going up to whether there were going to hold re in contempt or not both Kevin Mccarthy and comber talk to re and they told them? You have to give us this document, but Mccarthy said to him. If you need to redirect stuff out to protect the informants identity, that's fine! We get that we get that all the time, so I think the bureau, when they rejected, may have been acting on what they understood to be the

directions from congress that they were able to do that, and I would just point out to people that, even though we ve now known for about four or five days about these seventeen tapes, I haven't heard comber say a word like I haven't, heard combers come out and how outrageous it was that they rejected this. So I suspect that though there was a lot of the attacks in the senate hearing couple of days ago, with Marsha blackburn and ted cruz, going after the deputy, F b. I director about the redactions comer has been awfully quiet about this and it, and it makes me suspect that you know. Maybe the bureau wasn't doing something insidious. Maybe they thought they were redacting what they were allowed to? Redact. I don't know we'll have to see, but I'm not. I I hold my breath on this one for Ok, so last topic: Daniel penny, the young farmer, marine involved, this subway tragedy,

george, nearly an a have. He has now been charge First, we have confirmation of that too. charges so you manslaughter criminally naked homicide? There was some thinking that may be brag had made a big deal of having him surrender just to show he is really in invested in and trying to hold the sky to account with No, maybe the grand jury, wouldn't it wouldn't indict him, but we haven't diamonds yeah So the grand jury has indicted and you don t too to assume. I guess that the grand jury did what a grand jury supposed to do,

and the issue. The only issue rich for a grand jury is whether there was probable cause to charge penny and have a trial. So penny doesn't get to make his defense in front of the grand jury, and I thought that the grand jury he offered to testify in front of a grand jury. I haven't heard that he did testify. I don't know if they called him. I don't know how many of the whitney is who were on the train were called to the grand jury. But it's just you were at a very early stage. We don't know a lot about the grand jury proceeding and what the grand

refining finding means is that there was enough evidence to charge him doesn't mean that they think they ll be able to convict em a trial. And what, as we discussed before, you know, he put this guy in a hold and the guy died and there's a there's, a coroner's report that says that it was a homicide which means the coroner at least made a finding that the guy rise death was caused by another human agency. Now that doesn't make any finding as too intent or anything else. When the coroner says, the coroner has found a homicide. Technically that doesn't mean you are finding that there's a martyr that happen or even a even a hot, even of manslaughter george. What, when a coroner, finds homicide

It simply means that the death was caused by some other human agency. Besides and not suicide right, I that's what that's what have if the grand jury found probable caused to charge him. Based on that, I can't say that's wrong, even though I think it's very unfortunate and it's very bad look. Does the technical legal aspect of this, which is: is there a crime or isn't there He's he's got a right to self defence, we're in this very grey area. Where you know what's It is a legal confrontation could, at some point, have evolved into manslaughter, we'll have to see how it plays out. But I think just you know as a practical and political matter. alvin brag has made the city in new york much less safe. By doing this, Andy with us all the time we have for this episode. This park has been produced by incomparable sarah, should he thinks it one? Firstly, thank you, eddie mccarthy, thanks rich