I'm Rich Lowry, editor of national view and host for our podcast called funnily enough. The editors really gone. The editors I discuss with my colleagues the latest news and national controversies. We cut through the cat get beyond the lies and spin and provide insight and fax. Your gonna get anywhere else, while having a good time doing it. In this era of folly, myth and hysteria, you owe it yourself to check out the editors. You can find it on Google play stature tuna in Itunes. We hope to see you soon. Welcome to the Mccarthy report packing for I Rich Lowry, discuss with Andy Mccarthy the latest on the Mulder Report and other legal and nationals security issues this week. The S word

Sarge Arrest and the impending Gregg, Craig in Diet, meant here listening to a national you pod cast. If you'll stay as Pakistan Asher You D, comrade life, have you better be easier for you and better for us? If you made us party or feed a Google place teacher I tunes or tune in an please give this podcast and Andy Mccarthy the lavish the false some gushing, even praise they deserve, and a five star review you on Itunes and now without further Ado. I welcome to this part gas through the miracle of Skype. None other than any Mccarthy Rachel Are you gushes? That's what we need are areas like that. I have looked at their views later with lately, but I'm sure our views can use worth gushing more gushing. Absolutely I'm blush their gushing. I hope so Toolbar. Today's testimony first date for the house.

he tells us he's reviewing how'd the the FBI and the department handled the Russia Investigation and twenty sixteen and subsequent events, and then yesterday the world crashes around here because he uses the word spying. A couple times says there was say that he wants to look at this. All this could spying on a presidential campaign is a big deal. He's asked. He are you really saying that buying occur, to cut a pause a little bit too yeah. I think spying happened, and then he kind of he in new wants that word subsequently and you don't made the point that it is getting at fundamentally, is whether that the surveillance was properly predicated so What are you Annie? What do you make the S word and what he said yesterday, you don't rich. I felt like we were back in the idiotic

argument. I had a look up. One this all took place, but I felt like we were back in may last year, twenty eighteen. When the stories broke about Stefan Helper and we had the time remembering this right. You know two or three weeks of really stupid discussion about the lexicon to apply to what a spy did when he spied I mean there are nice words that you can nor nicer words. I suppose that you can can put to it. You know you can call someone and inform endure. This does any number terms, I suppose you can apply but you don't spying- is what it is. It's a pejorative word, but back in twenty eighteen

There was no longer a credible basis on which to argue that there had been. Spying on the term campaign. Now, at that point in time, a lot of us thought that that that ship had said Long before once, we learned that there had been, valence warrants, which are often called rich spying warrants. you know once we knew that the foreign intelligence Surveillance court, which trade, which which deals a lot with espionage, that they had issued, warrants. One quarter page on the theory that he was a spy for Russia. That spying was going on since we were monitoring right and then it emerged that they had. use disguised upon helper and perhaps others to take runs of people in the trunk campaign.

And try to find out what, if anything, they knew about russian potential possession knows emails were damaging to Hillary Clinton and what What for knowledge, if any people may have had about the DMZ hacks coming out now and the like? It was no longer credible at that point to argue that spying hadn't happened and if you re number one we heard from you know: people like Marco Rubio and trade Gouty who try calm everyone down about this- I don't think Gouty here same position on that anymore? Maybe maybe does. I don't think so, though, but the issue at that point the same same position being that of having relaxed attitudes.

can the f B. I haven't done anything right here. Basically, I think what he said at the time was when everybody sees what happened here and see what the F b I did they'll be happy with it, and the suggestion was that this wasn't Donald Trump this wasn't necessarily the campaign, it was a few people when the orbit of the campaign. Now I don't, I don't think that that stop for a variety of reasons, particularly what you can read with your own eyes, when you read the what we ve seen of the fire, the surveillance warrants where the FBI, I expressly heads in the surveillance warrants in every single one of them, rich at the laying out Russia's espionage operation against the campaign? The F b, I says the FBI. I believe that quarter page and perhaps other people involved in the Trump campaign

are inspiring with Russia in these operations so hard, it's not just the court, a page is being so veiled, The page is being severely for one and only one reason his attachment to the trunk campaign, the fact that he was affiliated with it and as weaves Discussed any number of times even noticed, doesn't seem to be common knowledge. Unfortunately, once you go up, would you I would like to say once you go up on someone's gonna go up on their communications devices that Sir law enforcement parlance for once eavesdropping begins. When you, you know what you're operational you, surveillance, borders and working do you not only get to monitor their prospective communications. You get to go backwards into their stored. Communication told TAT sold emails, old social media posts and what the F b I was clearly trying to do in October of twenty

Sixteen, when the surveillance on page began was not wait two minor here, monitor him going forward, but to go backwards into his past communications when he was clearly involved in the trunk campaign and into things like July. Twenty sixteen trip to Russia, which was a big item in the surveillance, warrant. So this is a long winded way of saying at least we were having this dopey debate back, they have twenty eighteen about, you know, should we call him, should we call help or a spy, or should we call em an informant or you know an asset? What should we call him? At least, then the debate had evolved to appoint where it was no longer credible to say that there was no spying. Now, the issue was, who exactly was being spied on and in what was the basis for doing it and whether

were alternative investigative measures that they could have done shortened spying on people who are attached to a political campaign But it was no longer credible to say the hadn't been spying, but because with it was so obvious. It was as our basis. You know that this is Thursday morning now If you watch that descended hearing yesterday, you would think that we didn't know any of tat like none. Had ever happen, and these guys are hysterical that bar could say There was spying when everybody knows there was spying. The issue is not whether there was flying or not, as he said yesterday, and he hasn't luck to a conclusion about this, but that at least that we can detect what. He said was, I think, spying occurred, and the question is whether it was properly pray. created, an item for the life, and we understand how anybody could argue with that. We ve. Here anyway.

we're at times, and I m sure, said this myself with a thousand times it. There were evidence that a presidential campaign really were in Cahoots really was in Cahoots with an adversary foreign power like Russia and that an objective of a crime no conspiracy was undermine our electoral process somehow or even to the even to promote propaganda in a political campaign. I would think The incumbent administration, even if it was from the opposition party, would have an obligation to investigate that an item I dont think sensible people have a problem with the with the dear that, yes, we have a norm against political spying, but it's not in your rebuttal presumption and if the camp were involved in very bad stuff. The income

government has to do something about that and if investing it is, though, is the step. The next step. we want to know is why you know what triggered it. I think you know we all can either in terms of. Holding two thoughts that our intention. At the same time, I think we can all we should all be able to agree We ought to aspire to a norm against political spying and at the same time accept the fact that that norm is not something that has to hold in every single instance, and that, if there's something a really nefarious going on. It's gotta be investigated. So the question becomes was it serious enough to breach the norm that would

the wise apply that you don't do political spying. So let levy pushy on this Devils advocate style and make a cup of white. I think the other side would make listening to you. They would they say one because the word spying, it's it's pejorative and has a heavy sense of kind of illegitimate surveillance. Emmi we unknown would object right. The word spying applied to what the F b I did. Martin Luther King, you know it and then in the sixtys, but that this wasn't spying on the trunk campaign. In that sense, and it wasn't seeking you know, there's no suggestion that it was wanted. His campaign strategy to the set there was a strategy or you know, Was- was plumbing for for any political information

they just wanted to know the relationship. If there was one with Russia and to the further point they'd make is look. This was this was an investigation of Russia and some people, incidentally, get caught up, because I had relationships with Russians, russian also be like gum, sang NASH, reviews being spied on, because we have an employee here who you got caught up. Some chinese businessmen have who have our entangled chinese intelligence not start to be investigated, and that person who writes for us, Sir, is works here, is caught up in that vestibule, but no one really, no one spying on Asher, you know, is trying to find out what NASH reviews doing that is trying to find out what China is doing. Rich. Let me, the second part of that first and then and I ll go back- that would be a valid or given to make, had not Jim Comin gotten up on with it.

March twenty years or so of twenty seventeen in very public house testimony and announced to the war old, not only that the FBI was conducting a intelligence investigation of Russia, which was not actually late, breaking news since we had gotten and intelligence port back in January, about the interference in the elections is no big secret, that there was a investigation going on, but he were to ITALY. Added at that point that out, Investigation includes whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Now, it's not only against justice, deportment rules to it, knowledge the existence of an investigation, counter intelligence investigations are classified so they're not supposed to be spoken about in any context And it's always against the rules, whether you doing it

intelligence, investigation or criminal investigation to mention here The uncharged targets of the investigation are so even knowing that about eight ways to Sunday, that was, that was completely improper thing to say: he went out of his way to say that the Trump investigate the Trump campaign was a big part of the room. shit investigation and then he went on even more Gretel Firstly, at the end to say so, that actually wasn't true. It was misleading, which was essentially as in every such investigation, they'll be an assessment at the end about whether Rennie crimes were committed. In point of fact, inquiry into where the crimes are committed is not a regular port of account or intelligence investigation it is simply a rule of thumb in any invest

negation, whether its counter intelligence, criminal personnel, investigation of regulatory investigation. If the police are conducting a look the ultimate investigation if they have a right to be there to be doing what they are doing and they stumble upon a crime, while they are doing it that crime can be prosecuted, there's no regular assessment, that's done as a normal part of the Counter intelligence investigation to see whether crimes were committed, it's just a fact that if you happen appalling crimes, you can prosecute them. So Why on earth, when you talk, and when you, when you have a counter intelligence investigation, would you tell the world you were conducting it? Would you tell the world that the president's campaign was a subject of the investigation and would you suggest to the world that people are going to be indicted at the end of it? Why would you do that.

the only reason on earth to do that would be to publicly suggest that these guys are involved in some kind of a conspiracy with, Russia and Jim, is a very more guide. He had to know that the effect of what he did was who is going to be precisely that that it was going to convince people that the president was a suspect, criminal investigation that involved in espionage, conspiracy with Russia, so that was just by the way, the most notorious example of what was done, to my mind from the time the Trump got elected right. Through that point, there was the assiduous campaign of intelligence leaks, which design precisely by people who were in the intelligence Community to project the Trump campaign, and perhaps the president himself as

people who the Russians had over a barrel and who would be doing Putin's bidding from the White House I really don't have a lot of patience for an argument at this point there, All that was happening here was an investigation in Russia and oh by the way. The Trump people just happen to have, incidentally, been caught up in when the arguments being made by the people who, when Adam your way to highlight the fact that tromp was involved in the FBI's investigation and who portrayed this for two and a half years as a corrupt conspiracy between Trump. in Russia. Now they're gonna tell us she was all about Russia in the hole. The trump angle isn't it

until seriously really so with it, but they were still say well. We're coming was talking about was was catalyzed by Russia and that they didn't want to investigate the Trump campaign as the Trump campaign they wanted investigate its potential connection with Russia. Then why would they say that crimes may have been committed? They weren't gonna, prosecute Russia for crimes. The only people gonna get prosecuted for crimes with a trump people and their habits or the first, like the spying being such a pejorative, that as yet strong strong hit of illegitimacy to it, not even hit that that is a good really saying. It's over yet. This is this is where we were back in May of last year. At you know, I may be less sensitive to this. That I should be rich because I prosecuted cases for twenty years, where,

in every case where I had a wire tab, you know whether with drug case or a mafia, Kay so whatever kind of a conspiracy case. It was the day employers all said the FBI was spying on. You know whoever the defendants were, and everybody knew what it meant Jerry, didn't you know nobody on. I never remember in twenty years seeing the Jura thanked when the world was used they called it spying. We called it monitoring the issue in that in those cases, as the issue always is whether there was good reason to be doing it or not, and You know whether it seem like we were framing depend so whether they had this guy, surveillance tactic coming to them because of the sea,

the nature of their behavior. So I think all this back and forth about the terminology that gets used is just you know. I mean really some of this stuff that that that gets hurled back and forth in the become. Station. The constantly goes back and forth in Washington seems to me to be a law more serious and a lot more scurrilous. Then, whether we, applies words by two spying or not. Notwithstanding that it has a you know. If it has a pejorative sent to it, I mean, You're, not collusion has a pejorative. Sense too were too and I haven't heard any day creating more. Maybe we shouldn't use that word because it conveys something that various that might not be there. You know when I look what I prosecuted cases the gun witnesses were called snatches them.

Monitoring was called spying. You know nobody had too much of a heart attack over it and it didn't stop anybody from you, dont in a clear right way, taking a look at the fact pattern in deciding worthy accusations that were made supported by evidence for warrant day. So you know again, I I just maybe it's just me. I'm not gonna have a lot of patience for a bunch of people who are not typically careful in rhetoric that use suddenly getting hysterical over the words by a guess. You mentioned Carter page a couple times an and I've been thinking for em out Carter. Page last last few weeks just seems to me this. This figure, the in a kind of cable tv left, had no interest in defending, in fact,

They wanted to defame M because it is one of the folks tat they thought or hoped who was at the centre of Ass conspiracy and then a lot of conservatives, except for people who, in the journals who really dug in on this, my Hemingway's Byron, Yorkshire, crosses, etc. They did the interest in defending him, because tonight is an odd guy right he'd, do these crazy, cable tv appearances represent himself in the legal procedure. thanks and had views on on Russia that all this disagree with them and find noxious, but I just wondered like what happened. Carter page exists, you so central and their their periods during this investigation, when the heat there like hysteria around Carter Page and go Chris Haze and be like such an explosive big deal. So like what happened. Carter page and just yes, I the bar testimony blew up. I went back and looked at the defies a warrant.

Application, and it said this quote the f B. I believe that the russian government's efforts are being coordinated with page and other individuals associated with trumps campaign, I need your eyesight that by its one reader specifically and then that asked. He thinks about it. So without seeing the Mulder report, yet the whole thing do you, know that this is wrong, because if they were right, he would have been. Indicted or the be some other indication and some action that this was the case, and we ve seen none of it and to the the sheer fat if it's wrong to the sheer fact that is wrong. Tell us anything about the d, the FBI's judgment and when it was tainted or desperately flawed, that role this and the Pfizer application, or just sometimes you know, you're you're operating on partial information and even in good faith. You can get something like this wrong. Well, there's, no doubt rich. Did

You can get something wrong, even operating in good faith, but I dont, I dont think in this instance that defence is very availing to them. I think would happen to corridor. Page was a disgrace. I mean, I think, would happen to him was really awful, and I I am struck by this, probably because it just so happens that I saw a quarter page last night We are pleased to hear that plugin and I am not plugged in that right me in the baseball crank. Actually, We were. I had a an event in Manhattan last night with the with Roger Kimball talking about the more investing they should not a federalist society event and a quarter page Avenant show up. So I ended up having a brief pleasant conversation with him, but I think he's really been terribly.

wrong here on an I dont really see any excuse for rich. I wouldn't that the part of the warrant that you read, which I quote poor site to all that I'm is really alarming, but it may not even be them. the alarming port of all this. Let's remember, they went back four times where they can offer time and then three times follow up saying that there was probably cause to believe this was true at the sky was do yeah you don't one of the linchpin other matters, Trump, Russia, conspiracy. That was meant to undermine our elections and it's just. You know I don't agree with part of pages foreign policy views and I've said that for a long time

at the same time. On the other side, the ledger he's in Annapolis graduate he was a naval intelligence officer he's gotta clean as whistle criminal record. As I understand it on one occasion in around twenty thirteen, because he was I think he worked at the narrow Lynch overseas. He was an investor in the russian Energy Sector, Gazprom in particular the Russians attempted to recruit him as an asset. Ah I think you know anyone whose met page announcing. He be surprised to hear me say this, because I certainly number times he's too

Politely he's eccentric, but he is not somebody who comes offers. Somebody would be a very effective, intelligent asset and in fact the Justice Department had recordings in connection with that case, in which the guy who was erstwhile recruiting page, referred to him as an idiot and was completely frustrated by dealing with them and talked about how useless. he was, but the upshot of that story in the reason it's worth repeating, is that. The people who defend the surveillance, constantly say that one of the reasons page was worthy of this kind of attention was the fact that the Russians had already tried to recruit him and twenty thirteen. Never get around to the inconvenient fact that one of the region

We know that is because page cooperated with the Justice Department, prosecution against the Russians. His information is actually used in the complaint that was used to charge. Three Russians vice who were charged in the case of Romania that just yesterday as reading, I think someone from the wash in imposing oh yeah that they had this Pfizer warn against Carter, page with the FBI, always been interested in Carter paid without mentioning that huge cooperate, more the FBI exactly right and then here's the other thing rigid This comes off. Is it a little bit too much inside baseball and it's too bad that it does, because this is an important point to my mind, one or two things: is that you have to show in a surveillance warrant. Is that because american law regards eavesdropping electronic eavesdropping. as such an intrusive investigative tactic,

the law, whether it's a criminal warrant or a national security Pfizer warrant in making the application for it. You have to show the court that alternative investigative technique eggs either have been tried and failed or would fail? If tried now, Carter page was a guy that the FBI had interviewed numerous times including wants, according to Adam shifts them all in response to Nunez his memory back in there was a twenty eighteen, including as late as some time in the first half, I believe, of twenty sixteen. So I'd really be.

various. I dont know why on earth with all the things that they have rejected, added that at a let memorandum or alone the Pfizer applications. One of the things they rejected is the part of the war in application, where they explain to the court, why alternative investigative techniques wouldn't have worked and Ivan, we're understood since the F B. I had a relationship with this guy. If they were concerned about the trip he took to Russia, Why not bring them in and ask him about it? Why not there is a guy they eat that they had no reason to think if they wanted to talk to him that he wouldn't talk to them. So I just I'd love to hear what their explanation for its like. It's like. You know why didn't they give it Hence a briefing you know what. Why not do that? Why did they always at every stage where they are we have done something less intrusive and less controversial. Why did they pushed the envelope every time and then there's probably seven or eight play

in this investigation, where you can see that and then dealt with The thing I would say about page is it's not just rich, that these allegations were made about. You know his trip to Russia. back there was this ongoing conspiracy. And he was in the middle of it, underwear american law size along. If you will going to get a warrant on an american citizen. It's not not to show probable caused that he's an agent of a foreign power like you know that some kind of deal, these terms that actually have definitions and to be an agent of a foreign power. They have to show that you are wilfully knowingly, not unwittingly, engaged in clandestine activity. On behalf of a foreign power,

and the clandestine activity is also defined in the statute. It's got to be activity that improbable violation of american federal criminal law. So they had to go back four times and show probable cause that this guy was knowingly engaged in criminal activity and they never rested on. You know they went back every the four times. They go back to a court and tell him. You know this problem. this guy is engaged in this nefarious activity in support of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia and at the end, it's like oh, never, mind yeah. So too does I haven't looked, I dont think ever read Annie. I must confess that the entire five application, But it is our the references to what we think are the dossier they all rejected. Now.

Some of them are some of the more obvious. Some of them Aren'T- and you know this game playing going on with the reductions rich, its understandable that you you haven't written at the same time, I can assure you, wouldn't take a long time to read them because, even though its four hundred pages- probably a good three hundred at least of a more arduous or reductions, and that has enabled the fact that there are all these reductions and at the fact that most people, understandably, are not lawyers in this field. Who were going to look at these things carefully This has enabled the Democrats to say: will all the really nefarious incriminating stuff is the redirected stuff?

could only see the reductions. We would know that there is definitely a case against these guys. They just happened that Vienna Fora for National security reasons. They can't show us that stuff. Well, if you actually look at the papers and you compare them to the statute, what you find is the part of the. The warrant papers that actually lays out the probable cause for the warrant the very fine, I'm part of it most of what is rejected or the orders the part of the application. The attorney general signs off on the port that the FBI director signs off on the thing that that lays out what kind of into what kind of techniques of surveillance there allowed to use, because, obviously we don't want to show for it,

hours, how we spy on them most of what rejected in these papers has almost nothing to do with probable cause the probable caused such is easy due to figure out, because if you compare the application it matches up with the sub sections in the statute, so you could see in each place where they were they kind of hill in the blanks, and it's not true that you know you have pages and pages and pages of evidence here that we just haven't been able sea because it rejected out most of what they rejected out is legal. he's in it involves techniques of surveillance, not the probable caused surveillance and remind me- and I'm also I'm fine. I've been I hated capacity, animal climate seated. My parents? Not you not you hired history. This podcast, I I never read the dossier I sort of red in it a little bit so does he figure of discarded figure prominently very nausea? Yet,

three of the scheme. Is that there's a Trump Russia Conspiracy and its basically being run by poor man afford and his emissaries. Are you know, page and Cohen rights up, but the stands to reason that they have they relied on the dossier in that iser application, oh yeah spray, where they got the idea right. Oh yes, and I think the young, the July trip in which some steel says that page met with eager searching- and eager to via again one of them section is the year. I think he's ahead of one of the russian Energy Conglomerates and Viking is on now on Putin's you don't executive. staff and they supposedly talked about waving.

Sanctions in exchange, for you, know, bride payments of of like fabulous unbelievable amounts of money that which is you don't beyond ridiculous and the idea that the Russians had what they call the compromise file on Hilary which they might be willing to share with the trunk campaign and a warning. I think this were from divide in that trunk, better watch out because they had a compromise file on Two and all this is communicated to page because, as everyone knows, page has a very close relationship with Donald Trump, who he's never met by right and also he's never met the guy who is directing him in the campaign in the scheme. Man afford he's, never met him either. They are so that I remember it. I think US her himself Navy who now looking at numbs, I feel so familiar calling card or now I think it in some interview or some filing, he was trying to establish how help read any was

everything in it. He said you I offered go. I have lunch truck tower like in the food court with the young anyway. If they had brought him into interview him, it would have been interesting to see if page would have been able to pick man of word out of all out of a line of Europe for a photo spread, so you mentioned are I am we both mission reductions, which is good safe way to the other bar controversy? That's going hot right now, but before we get to that lets pause because not enough for this package just to have my and our plus plugs, we need crew whose plugs as well- and we can turn to our dear friend and colleague for publisher current vice president of NASH, Review Jack Fowler, to tell us a little bit about these fantastic national.

you voyages, Jack, Ensign Jack Power here to encourage you to join your favorite conservatives, this August on energy, a new England, crews for your Will board HOLLAND, America's luxurious Zan down and over the next will sail the glorious Saint Lawrence River visit, convexity bar harbour by, in another great ports and enjoy great seminars and receptions throughout the sojourn prices started. twenty four. Ninety nine a person get complete information at an hour. Crews, doc so eddies reductions that this,

and an even before we ve seen the rejected report, we're having a huge fight over reductions and the left is suggesting that bar is gonna reductive, much possible and it's gonna radar with ill intentions and hide also damaging material, the his, reductions. Would you make that presumption in line of argument? One and two, What are the very real obstacles to releasing the full report, including this sixth circuit, a decision that you ve focused on the disease. Or could you say, sir, I'm sorry it's either was flying five idolized glided. I wasn't looking at the idea. We look at the nodes, any that's that's with, and we see that there have been three just talked about this last week. You make me feel better is

so this is the Mercator case that we have done that the DC circuit by a divided panel to the one panel decided last Friday. let me just say, preliminarily, I'm I'm always amuse when in the confirmation hearings for an attorney general. They always especially the Democrats and Republicans nominee, make a point of saying you understand that you're, not the president's lawyer, you're, the people's lawyer you're the government's lawyer you're, somebody who has to follow the law? No matter what the president wants you to do, and then we have the first controversy inevitably comes up where the law is now with Congress, wants it to be The attorney general is not supposed to call the law anymore, he's supposed to be congresses, lawyer writing. So what we have here is Congress has written a law,

rule sixty of the federal rules of criminal procedure. I think they last enacted that and it's pretty much been, As is about nineteen, seventy seven and it provides various reasons why a court ten breach grand jury, secrecy and disclosed grand jury material, and Congress did not right into the statute disclosure to Congress in connection with a special counsel or any other special councils. We didn't have a nineteen seventy seven, but they didn't. They didn't put in the law, any provision for disclosure to congress- and it's not like this- has not been an issue before one of the cases that. other Deasey Circuit had to wrestle with in the Mcivor case, was the Haldeman

from the Watergate era, which, in which the same issue in a slightly different procedural context, came up. So it's not like you know. Congress doesn't know that this issue is out there and if they really wanted this information, all they would need to do is amend rule six ii, which they have the power to do to say you can give this information to Congress. and it seems to me that they they evidently would rather have the issue they would but apparently rather say. There's a big cover up in your true to use this not to give us the information they need. Pass a law that would give them the information so age. I just think that's an interesting dynamic here, but The mcivor case says this is a consistent with what the Justice Department argued in the case of the panel found that judges must apply, rule sixty as written. They don't have any inherent or residual authority too,

disclose grand jury material outside the rationale and the statute for disclosing it so bar, especially with the Justice Department having just argued this case. Medici circuit and one obviously bark hand take the position that he's at liberty to close information from the grand jury to Congress, unless its consistent with it exception and rule sixty, and there are none that apply to disclosing the Congress Congress knows that bar it would be illegal aboard to do this, so they know he can't do it, and rather than just acknowledge that the reason his hands are tied with respect Jerry Material, is because of the way the laws written. They would rather spend their studies looking for every reason under the sun to withhold information from them

and who knows whether it will work or not again, as we as we discussed before. A lot of this grand jury argument may be much ado about nothing. It is true- and this is pretty common rich- that every page of Mars report is apparently stamp that you know this may potentially have grand jury matter real when it in its subject to rule sixty and disclosing it is against the law. You know blah blah blah, there's a lot of government documents, Stone grand jury, information that have that have to have that kind of a stamp on them so that you dont inadvertently disclose something that you shouldn't but that does not necessarily mean that the thing is chalk, a block with grand jury, material and Also. Does it mean that the grand jury material is the most employee, and material that the Congress. The interested, and I continue to think that we're

gonna end up having an issue here is how much, if any executive privilege the president or the attorney general on behalf of the president involved, on the basis of information that was provided tomorrow are not through the grand jury but internally by the White House the understanding that giving the information to Mahler was not a waiver of privilege to me, that's gonna, be that's gonna, end up in the much more interesting issue than the grand jury Maybe I'll be surprised me will see. The report will be a ton of grand jury material, but I doubt it so another secular, privileged question. We go into little bill last week, so the bark and kind work both ends that street he can. He can be the guide. What to release in the guy deciding what the administration is claiming privilege over. Yet it's you don't want the right.

That, of course, Congress never highlights this, but one of the most important roles of the year of the Justice Department, Ridge and the Office of legal counsel is to protect the prerogatives of the executive. branch. The d in some instances, the on the Justice Department, is the lawyer but the president, but not the lawyer for the President, in the sense of being his personal criminal lawyer, the lawyer for the President, in terms of protecting the prerogatives of the executive branch from ocean, you know imagine if Congress Congress didn't like that the president could do ex wires these things because of his constitutional Authority and Congress started to just enact statutes that took away parts of the president's power. It would be one of the functions of the Justice Department to to step in and say no, you can't do that. That's unconstitutional we're, not gonna enforced

this and what is one of the ways of the Justice Department would protect. The prerogatives of the executive branch would be to exercise Dude of discretion in an obvious situation, now- what I imagine what might happen here, because this ultimately is the president's privilege- would be bar could identify the places where privilege might be invoked and could go to the president and say: do you want to involve privilege or not What we understand- and you know we don't know every that's going on between the president and the attorney general, but the attorney general has kind of suggested that tonight,

understanding in his testimony that the president has given him court launched to do what he thinks should be done now. Not I'd be altogether comfortable with that. If I was, if I was bar, but you don't look bar is a very smart and an savvy guy, and I think he knows that you know if you would hold Does that you know? Arguably, you should be giving them and put the price of being Queues of a cover up is gonna, be much higher than whatever it is you're going to reveal. I think he's gonna he's gonna era side of revealing that stuff, because it is always better to give it up at the beginning, then to let them be you into disclosure things and makes them look much worse. So I would expect

that he is going to err on the side of not invoking executive privilege but the, but the cabbie at the time we have to add rich, is John Doubt said in his interview with Byron Yorktown, having been known throughout the trumps leave lawyer for awhile. There were evidently ashore We insist that were given to at least some of the witnesses who cooperated with mauler that the informal- in that they were sharing, was being shared in a confidential way because it was an executive branch to executive branch communication and I, as I think he explains it, they are under their agreement- is have to go back at a much smaller wanted to use any of it publicly. They would Mahler would have to go back to them and get it. termination over whether they were gonna, wave privilege or not. So it's hard

let us not knowing, what's going on behind the scenes to to sort that out what do not always that bar says that he is working in tandem with Mahler staff to work through this thing in and get out within the next few days, a version of it. That is, you know that has accessions which they explain. You don't eat without with respect to each one is supposedly a color coded hang about. Color coding already know why this is can be better than just the standard black reductions, another The words yet more was just get it right here, while Loki says, there's four categories: a reduction- Grand jury classified information maybe I'm missing one that he's off. He also talked about you know just as deportment policy, with respect to extraneous players, not like peripheral players, so that you don't write, compromise,

they are run their privacy interest and they're not daily. Apparently, that won't be invoked with respected the central players, but anyway, with respect to each category, you're gonna be told what the reduction which category that reduction is in and they gonna give you some explanation for why, yes, to obvious laid there, just a semi Konrad acted. It they'll be house on the left at nice. Listening at the end of lorries, hedonic shown Emerson BC last night, and ass he was. He was fantasizing about a democratic winning present when the presidency and twenty twenty exactly so here she could release for more reports at ease, had like a year and a half their still gotta be obsessed with this, and the reductions by will know by it, buyer next apathy of this party right. Will, you probably have the report. So let's go run along was quickly hits the next couple of talks before we do. We can't let Jack

you are all the the advertising reads on this package saw just mention very briefly that people should sign up for an hour plus the only way to get access starve content. They mean pay war. Is we ve literally, I don't want to make a claim executive privilege over this shouldn't real too many internal deliberations wherever very real conversations about helping them your pay wall and having more content behind it and if you wanna just avoid in any proof getting blocked in any way to sign up for an hour plus five dollars a month on average and getting even get better deals, and that also to other benefits, including exclusive, invites to calls and events. We had a meet up in Washington within our plus subscribers wages. We just out in drinking beer. Atta Irish die bar and we can do more. These events around the country, so I hope you sign up. We hope to see you soon. We hope you come part of their and our plus community, so Andy. The Julian Assange drama

at least the latest chapter appears to be coming to an end. The british police arrested him over night. He had been holed up in Ecuador, an embassy. no it from us ten years apparently got said- ecuadorians got sick of em is as many people do, of visitors who won't leave specially vizors. Apparently untidy cat, other annoying habits and he's been, I guess there what he's been indicted in the United States and the assumption is he'll be heading here. What do you make of it? Well, the what we hear riches that the Washington Post report so he's been indicted under seal, which would be typical for someone who is not in custody saluting unsealed it now that there is a pending extradition request from the United States. The charge involves conspiracy to apparently obtain and publish? U S class

I'd information. It's in connection with the then Bradley now Chelsea Manning Events, both I believe it was twenty ten. So that's the conspiracy that he's been charged with at least that's what's been reported by the wash imposed, I would think that that really riches the main driver of his arrest today, be where's. The other charge against him in Britain is bail, jumping which is in Kenya, with these swedish sexual assault charge start have since been dropped. So the real thing that's in play, I think, is the EU s extradition request. So when you make the argument and in keeping with mile total lack of preparation, I did not read these Jack Goldsmith articles by sea

I'm tweeting them making a case that actually, what Julian Assange did is not that different from what the New York Times does. Certainly what it does now, which is you you yet meet and classified information and publish it yeah? You know, I think is a really smart guy and he's he's right and it is in the argument, but basically the the fault line here is. I guess we have to look at Two things number one: is he a journalist or is he a thief? In other words whatever installation you have whatever immunity. You have under the first amendment as a journalist to run with classified information and and publish it does not cover

you before committing crimes in the acquisition of the information. So, for example, if you are involved in a hacking conspiracy, and you're, a journalist and you publish national security secrets that you ve hacked you may or may not have immunity with respect to the publication. You have no immunity with respect to the hacking, so the question will be How strong is the government's evidence that he was there are in a conspiracy to war. In a bedded in the unlawful? Acquisition of the information that was then published and then there is a second thing, rich, which is much more controversial, which is the question of how much immunity does a journalist, we have because of the first amendment to refrain or ought to be in terms of publishing

you don't knowingly wilfully, publishing, classified information that not a settled area of the law the journalists assume that they have first amendment protection, but there has, I think, you know back in the first half of the twentieth century. There is at least one prosecution, that involves a journal western and unlawful exposition of of classified it. For me, so I think the very unsettled area of the law and its one. I think the government has wisely not tried to push I've always thought in the area of classified leaks. I would be high on the journalists in terms of trying to identify the leaker if had no other way of finding the weaker but prosecuting the journalist for the actual publication. Is that may be a bridge too far for a lot of

and maybe should be under the constitution. So, finally, let's hit very quickly the Gregg Craig coming and I've been what seems to be the coming and Ivan he's told people they expect to be and died in which we make it ass. Yet I think this has been coming for a long time rich since at least Rick Gate started to cooperate with the more investigation gates was man affords a portal. And especially since they are in I did a lawyer who worked at the Craigs firm, this guy Alex vandals on who was convicted in the more investigation we. Basically man afford an gates paid a law firm that a great Craigs law firm, four million dollars to generate a report that was favourable to the EU

training and political party they working for, essentially that we need the Yanukovych government when you know Kovich Viktor Yanukovych metaphor work for was running the country in Ukraine. They did a political prosecution against his vain opposition, Juliet Tomasz Anko, and it was clearly a political persecution and the law firm essentially generated a favourable report that whitewash a lot of the young, the unsavory elements of it- and you know the theory of the prosecution, I think, is that Craig was acting as an unregistered asian of Ukraine. So I think this has been coming for a long time and it'll probably happen. Okay. Well, that's all the time you have you

this international podcast pod gases would produced by the incomparable Sarah should he thinks I want for listening, and thank you Andy Mccarthy, thanks rich