By Rich Lowry, editor of National Review and host of our podcast called funnily enough, the editors every week on the editors I discuss with my colleagues the latest news and national controversies. We cut through the can't, get beyond the lies and spin and provide insight and fax you're not going to get anywhere else, while having a good time doing it. In this era of folly, myth and hysteria, you owe it to yourself to check out the editors you can find it on Google play Stitcher soon it and I tunes we hope to see you soon. Welcome to the Mccarthy report. The pot gas right which Lowry discuss with Andy Mccarthy, Delay. on the Mulder Report and other legal and national security issues. This week the El Paso

Dayton shootings in how to respond, you'll, say to a national you, pod, castor pike this week is sponsored by dividend, CAFE the new podcast from our friend David Bonds, and more about that in due course. If you, this podcast Naturally, you dot com or delighted to have you, but it would be easier for you and better for us. You made as part of your feet. Google place teacher tune in Itunes or Spotify, and please give his podcast and Andy Mccarthy. The glowing gushing embarrassing five star review. They deserve pawn Itunes now without further I welcome right here in the pod cast studio at an hour world headquarters, none other than animal protein, rich a warrior, good for you, Andy NUTS, one thirteen out of forty, How do you think so? Nasal six in six energy

I mean in applying the best aims to actually plain the worst things, but you can only play who's on the schedule right, but now they have three games with the nationals over the weekend. So that starts the stretch of the skies. where the gonna play the teams they would have to beat out and their only one game, it's another. While cardiac everybody laughed four dead, including me two months ago. So it's useless, nay a couple weeks ago, when I'm driving that, during the day somewhere on a vacation and weakens Alison too, that the fan sports radio here in New York, and that those guys are just like forget it submits fancy, call with like a little a little spark of her. forget it. You know these are meaningless gains from next to mind, see otherwise will dump the innocent a garden all these guys no matter what who's pitching and assist these days, you stay hundred and get a little hot. The second half there in

I know this is the best streak they ve had in almost thirty years. I think this this string an as yet and look pitching very good ventures now thin, but their heading and they're getting to play the things that have to be too will see but dumb to have thought that the season was over, which is always crushing to air and now it's the middle of August, and we have association or so grateful for meaningful game. Yes now- and this is a main it's not forever, but first time in three years. This weekend will be the first time in three areas that the valuable game yet out, much much. More importantly, I'm holding in my hands as we speak your new book our next week, ball of collusion, the Plough to rig an election and destroy a presidency, so the one you want to read this book, you can find it anywhere that fine books are sold. You'll, be hearing much more about it on this path, podcast on Fox NEWS and elsewhere, but to tell us a little bit about private

What you know rich, it was a nightmare of a project which richer ritual good enough to have too much running commentary about this, because I've been grousing dim about that for probably two years now. But it really is hard to write something about a moving target where you don't really have a sensible and point- and I kind of convince myself that I should write about it. Because I had so much of a of a backlog of material on the Hillary Clinton, burned me and in the collusion stuff and why I ended up finding was it with such sprawling story that I had to figure out a peace that I could just break off and deal with and as a result, it it really change my conception.

The volume of of what the book would be. I really wanted to write a book at the beginning. When I talk myself into this, comparing the way the Hillary Clinton investigation was handled versus the way the Trump Russia Investigation was handled and try to make the pitch that there's no objective pursued, no matter how you feel about tromp, how you feel about Hilary, you couldn't objectively look at that say the same standard of justice was applied in both cases, and then I because it was current, I started to write it with the collusion p, that I needed to kind of get my brain around so ass. I saw the right that first, even though chronologically its last and what I realized was there was, I thought uninteresting. worry that hadn't really been addressed in what the collusion Narrative was all about, I mean we ve all

at a million times, but the more I looked at it and harder. I looked at it the more. I thought this never had a chance to be reality, and that's not that's not to say that you don't trump comported self well at all points along the line, but you know little basic things would hit me over. The head, like you know, isn't an interesting that poor man afford. Who is the guy that everybody's attention is kind of riveted in act in terms of connecting the Putin regime to the trunk campaign? I mean he's really the big link right because of the high What position he had a lot of allots been made of the fact that more never charged him with any collusion conspiracy, even though he got the book thrown item with a lot of stuff. But I just what you know more, never charged with being an agent of Russia either and when you

toward the at the prosecution, the theory of the prosecution is that he's an agent of Ukraine. and it just seemed to me that you are looking at that visit, big difference between being an agent of Ukraine and an agent of Russia. But the way this collusion narrative was sold. The american people saw Ukraine and they were supposed to think Russia. They saw a man afford, they was most have think Russia, and it just made me start to think deeper

about what the underlying premises of the collusion narrative work and how impossible or empty they were, and then the other thing. I think that really hasn't been addressed at that. That I try to talk about here is that it shouldn't be a surprise that the Obama administration pull this off because they spent eight years politicizing the intelligence product of but of our country. An politicizing law enforcement, so the thought that they couldn't come up with a narrative when they needed a narrative for four more important political purposes than some of the things they they politicized. Episodes over for a period of eight years seemed unlikely to me, so I just thought it was worth reminding people just held very political. They were and how they made the intelligence.

assessments of the country serve their political narratives throughout eight years, with the youngest with the upshot. Being it shouldn't be surprised, when they needed a new political narrative toward the end. They were able to come up with one pretty easily. So the book again is ball of collusion, pre order it on Amazon, which can do right now, as we speak and its available all over the country for sale at bookstores and elsewhere next week. Ball of collusion. Russians! Andy! Thank you absolutely! So, let's talk about these horrific shootings and what, if anything we can do about?

We had obviously the Walmart shooting in El Paso, where the guy rights at a manifesto with white nationals themes and then the shooting and Dayton of a left winger but seems to not have any political motivation just more terrain. She told people schizophrenia, accuse having delusions shot zones Sturgis to just completely appalling, so one consensus proposal that said press. I endorse Linsey grants working on on legislation. Democrats saying I guess,

other than a block exotic enough, but is the idea of a red flag, red red flag bills where people can go to a judge petition? A judge this person is Durrant or dangerous in shouldn't for some period of time have a firearm Luke you like this idea. I do, and I should prefaces by saying I think, probably everything that some that smart but needs to be said about this has already been said by David French, so I'm sort of them piling on his

excellent work here, but I think he's he's absolutely right that these laws are not only sensible and would not just be a a gesture that might actually be something that that moves, the ball up the field, not a cure all, but something that moves is things and in a beneficial way, and that is clearly constitutional. I I've really as somebody who, yet I'm not. I I'm not I'm not a flag waving. Second amendment person, but I feel strongly about the second amendment and I I feel strongly about it. For the same reason, I feel strongly about the other pillar. its provisions as well. But you know maybe it's because I was a prosecutor for such a long time. All of our right for qualified I mean all of our rights are not absolute and we

far more burdensome intrusions on rights that are at least as fundamental, if not more fundamental, then then. Second amendment rights, Billy Second amendment rights or are crucially important to liberty. The right to self defence is a is a natural right. I'm not these people who thinks that all you know like guns, I grew up in New York, city, cultures different and its funding. I at the last of the last five As I ran the: U S, attorney's office up in white plains, which handled not the Bronx in Manhattan, but the six counties north of the Bronx three counties on each side of the river when you cross into Westchester County and go nor

the culture about firearms of culture, about many other things with the culture about firearms, is very, very different than then you get in the city and that's just in New York, but I've I've seen both sides of it. In that sense, I think it's a very important right, but the idea that you can't anyway burden it without laying the groundwork to eradicate it to me is just foolish, and I think if people don't take sensible measures that are clearly lawful and might help. That. What's of inevitably going to happen, is that the people who have very Reasonable ideas about the second amendment are gonna gonna win the day. I think the margin right now the Supreme Court is very thin for four Heller yet and that that trepidation yeah and

don't think it would take a lot of being on reasonable that I can tell people from observing the courts to lower court for many many years there is wide ranging hostility to second amendment rights on the bench. Just said that the federal venture, particularly at the lower level, and especially after eight years of President Obama. But this was that this was true after Colinton as well and an even to some extent. You know some of the Bush judges there's a lot of fun, there's a lot of favor toward the government solutions and there's a lot of hostility towards the toward gun rights toward the death penalty in the usual array of subjects- and I think that when I, when I talk to people about this, who are not in the legal community,

I get the sense that they that they don't grasp health in the margin is in the courts and how quickly it could turn against them in a big way, and I think here's a chance to do something reasonable, that's lawful! If you don't grab it, then you know what's going to end up happen is unreasonable. Things are gonna, gonna be done and the people who are going to decide whether they are lawful or not are inclined to say their lawful and supreme Court is a crapshoot rep, so even followed his critique carefully, but where that our Dershowitz,

first to this idea and makes the argument that this would be a curtailment of someone's individual right based on on what he characterizes as a prediction about what they might do, which I gotta, he would argue, is different than how we operate in other cases, which you do something, and then, if it's illegal we there there is a punishment of curtailment of of your rights. This would be a more minority or port style predicting that you could be dangerous. Yet its here's here is where I think Alan's point is like totally off the rails. From the start, this whole idea of a predictive judgment. The right to liberty, is our most fundamental right, I mean other than life itself

in terms of how we define our or south of the country in every single case were somebody is arrested. Bail gets, does a constitutional right. The eighth amendments, as the reasonable bail has to be imposed or unreasonable, bail is is, is forbidden. So in every case, where a judge such male bail, the judge makes a predictive judgment about whether somebody is too much of a flight risk to be released and, in some cases involving a particularly serious violent crimes. The judge is permitted to detain the person pre trial on the basis of being a finding that the person is a risk of danger to the community, which can mean endangering witnesses potentially or just being a general danger to the community. At this

enough evidence that the person- let you know, Bigbigwig in the mafia or big cartel guy terrorists- would have you- and this is such a common finding rich, that there was some some crimes in the federal code that the presumption notwithstanding. The eighth amendment is in favour of detention, in other words is almost as if the burden of proof ships to the person who hasn't been convicted of anything. Yet what right would remember now would just at the Ceta state is stage of setting bail, no one's been convicted of anything yet, and yet, if the government can show that the persons been charged with a particularly serious crime, the burden ships over to that person to show why he should be released. Even though you would think looking at the eighth amendment that he has a presumptive right to be released so

It just seems to me that, in connection with rights, like liberty, we may considerably more intrusions than what we're talking about. Here I mean I've had terrorist cases rich, where and I had a mafia case that with some more but the terrorism case- is probably the best example, I think we arrested our thirteen or fourteen defendants whatever it was. In June of of June of ninety ninety three and we didn't finish our trial until October of ninety. Ninety five everybody was in custody whole trial. So when you find that somebody is a risk of flight or a danger to the community, depending on how complex the cases and how much disk-

For me there is and how much work there is to get the case to trial. You're talking about people could be in jail for one to three years, and that happens. So the thought that you know you can't upon an eye David's been very strong on this, and I and I want to echo it there has to be due process. This can't be illusory. There has to be. The person has to have a right. I think the person should have a right to be represented, desolate as if he were a criminal defended, but these have to be real rights. There has to be a searching inquiry done by the judge. I mean all of the array of due process should be brought to bear, but if you do those things, the thought that depriving somebody may be for long term, but but potentially just for a short period of time of their second amendment rights when we detain people at times for two or three years prior to trial. On the on the predictive judgment

that they might harm witnesses or or flee the jurisdiction to me, there's no comparison. So let dig in on El Paso, some and and this white nationalist issue. One. Do you accept the argument that we have white nationals just because you have some folk saying? Look you you look at the characteristics common to almost all these measures there. All this disaffected, young man and the cut of the white nationalism is just something make they glow Bonn to its, not that serious, that the real problem is that their lonely, nihilistic, hateful young man. So so, let's not make this an ideological thing. What is not?

and so, of course, I've been dealing with that same argument in the context of radical Islam for a generation right. I have no doubt that there is wide national is. I think we were significant white nationalism problem in the country just like we have a significant Shariah premises, problem in the country, except the surest premises problem and- I should make this point. First, there's you have to make a distinction between the ideology and the people who commit violence right, so there are proper

Will you seven million Muslims in America out of that population, a certain percentage? I would suggest that too much higher percentage and people- thank probably closer to a third- are adherent to some degree to serious promises, a meaning that they would rather have their lives governed by a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia, then under american law, and then Within that population, a certain percentage, probably a very very small percentage- is actually gonna graduate on two jihadism, but to me is a much easier if the once you once you get past what our government has allowed us to do, for a generation which is to just accept the common sense fact that were allowed to proven court when we have a terror.

case that there's a nexus between the ideology and the violence. If you can cross that threshold, then this is a finite population and you can make goes back to Alan Dershowitz. We can make much better predictive judgments of where the threat may come from. I think the problem with white supremacist em. is that it not only exists, but the population in the country, not now not the cup population of white supremacist but the, but the white population of Amerika is huge. The unlike gum, unlike islamic groups, white nationalist, I think, for the most part, dont form up in big discernible organisations there like pockets of them here and there and of those small diffuse pockets

some very small percentage of people going to commit violent. So to me it is a very difficult problem, not only because it absolutely exists, an ideology, but it's it's so diffuse and miniscule when the population that picking out where the threats may come from is much more difficult than it would be in other idiot, logically related threats, which to me means you have to do you have to be more reliant, rather than less reliant on the kind of intelligence, first methods of policing those are the only ones that are available to us if we actually want to try to stop this stuff, rather than so so what so? What is at me? What what is intelligence based policing mean, and what would it specifically entail dealing with this problem, while intelligence base policing is that is

actually, it's a proactive rather than reactive, policing. So a lot What we do in law enforcement is, we know, crimes happen, and then we react to them. We prosecutes And then we have. You know certain threats which are

continuing enduring threats? Organised crime is a good example where, because of the because of the nature of the problem and the indifference of it, you'll have police units that are dedicated to investigating this kind of crime, who collect a lot of intelligence about it and who go out, beat the bushes and talk to people and develop informants so that we start to get streams of information about what's going on before things happened right and this. This is the approach that I'm talking about. You have to have an active police presence. They have to be you wanted. You want to allocate the police presence according to what your intelligence tells you about, where the threat most likely comes from, but then the police can't be afraid to go out and do their jobs. You have to be able to go up and start conversations with people and talk to people in need,

informants and send them into places where, if, if it was publicized that you are sending the men, people would say the first amendment was being shredded and and all that stuff, if you're not willing to do that- and there are a lot of people in the country who aren't then wherein basically, the Dayton in El Paso situation were hoping against hope that you know when something terrible happens, it'll be it in a container legal situation. someone will be able to disarm, whoever the shooter is usually a young man, almost always a young man before a couple, a dozen people get killed yet so hold that thought I want to dive into that. Even more, but first I want to hear from you: so this week dividend calf way we all have so many options for engaging political podcast, even just within the national circle of high quality, podcast content. I think the means you Andy.

but where does one girl? They want concise, practical and hard hitting investment commentary. Podcast we're look no further than the dividend cast a dividend. Cathay pot gases brought you by David Bonds and founder chief investment officer of the bonds and group and represents an entirely unique approach to assessing the economy. The FED the stock- get and your pocketbook. The dividend cafe is not another wing not attempt to pitch you galled and at the back does not carry a pollyanna view of the market that calls for investors keeping their heads in the sand Rather it addresses issues in a timely manner that matter to you. and it does so with a commitment to first principles and rooted in an ideology of free enterprise and sound money check out Dividend CAFE: dot com for a look at one of the most thoughtful critically acclaimed investment commentaries out there and sign up. The Dividend CAFE podcast for ongoing announced the trade war, the election, the FED and so much more that's dividend cafe.

for no nonsense economic cometary from the bonds and group, your antidote to thoughtless and lay there s of today's financial adviser pot, elation once again, that's dividend, cafe: dot com, please check it out David Barton as a good friend and colleague of ours and brilliant, and always were listening to give it a cafe dotcom, so any so so the the objection, civil betraying objection to what you're just outlining us in Europe getting people have done anything so, how do we do that? Why would you that? What we do it all the time we certainly did it. In the past, nine, eleven era when we changed our approach to counter terrorism, you know we're still dealing with people who want to attack the United States. We have not had a replicate,

and of the nine eleven atrocities, and I think that there has been there and there have been some overstepped but which were not living in an authoritarian society. I mean you know you. You were You have a problem. You have to deal with the problem. And the only way that you can deal with it is by allowing the police to to conduct informed investigations, which means you can start every investigation after

the terrible happens we need. I mean we ve, never taken that approach, at least in my experience in law enforcement going back to the late nineteenth seventies, I have never seen a situation where we take the approach with something that is I'm not talking about now. Episodic crime like on the typical street Grimes, that's unconnected to gangs and that sort of thing, but if you, you know whether its organised crime or narcotics, trafficking or terrorism or even fraud rings, when we have a problem that that crystallizes in that way, it's typical for the police to gather intelligence and two and to allocate police resources based on what their intelligence telling them, and I think, just if we'd, if, if we take a look at what the at how crime was handled New York's

We talked about this a number of times. I grew up in the Bronx in the battle days of the of the Sixtys and Seventys, where we had about four or five times the number of murders in a year when the city was smaller than than we have today right and they d the way that that happened was the New York City Police Department, mainly under visionaries like Rudy, Giuliani and and Bill Breton back in those days, converted the police department to a more intelligent space approach and they also added- and this is a big deal for intelligences, while a kind of a broken windows approach right where The EU not only communicated the signal to people that the laws were going to be enforced, but what they at, what ended

happening is when you arrested lower level people, you got to talk to them and when you talk to them, it increases your intelligence base because they did, they tend actually to no other people who were involved in bad stuff and that's how you build up you're your intelligence- and I think you know, with respect to this stuff, what we're talking about a bunch of issue sort of bundled up together. There's there's the hate ideology which obviously somebody has to be dealt with, this. Also the gun issue and you know, there's a lot of people out there saying we need all kinds of new regulations every time something happens day. They propose new regulations right and they use it. Basically, it's they exploit the situation to try to roll back the second amendment, that's like an old guy, but I dont understand why we don't pay more attention to the fact, and it is a fact that we do not in force

The laws that are on the books- and this goes- I I I participated in this myself when I was when I was running prosecutor's office, I would have you a t. F agents would come into me once or twice a month with a list of cases that they wanted to call and they were all cases involving people who made some kind of amiss statement. Other in order to try to get out a licence for gun or people who used strong as straw purchases in a relatives girlfriends, and the like and they wanted to close out virtually every one of these cases and, most of the time,

how to go along with the cause. You can't make them devote resources to something that they're. Not you know. I was there, I was the prosecutor, I could I could say you know this looks like a bad one to me. We should probably do this and supervises would say it I'll have the resources for this. You know we have real crime, we don't you know what this is Paypal war crime. Well, you know if you can be serious about the gun offences. I think you have to store prosecuting those. It's kind of to me. That's the broken windows version of of gun enforcement and I think that it would be. It would be something that Should be supported and would be supported by law, abiding gone owners- and you know I just for the life of me- don't understand the big complaint about how we need better, more laws and better laws when we have these laws that are on the books and nobody wants to enforce them. So another technical

back to the intelligence based approach would be from Both are any you know what you're absolutely right and this why we needed domestic terror law, to empower the sort of investigations and more the way we do dealing with a foreign terror threat. Yet so in federal law we have a definition of domestic terrorism, but we don't have any crime on domestic terrorism. We don't have any resource allocation problem at all. Cause you can devout every time. There is a shooting like this if its gang related or if it's not you, control resources at it,

there you have a terrorism, designation or not. That would not change that the reason that we do far and terrorist designations is it a lot of that activity happens outside the United States, a lot of people who threaten us or non Americans outside the United States and its a vehicle that makes it easier for us to address them the circumstances where we would otherwise have illegal vehicle to do it. It. It gives us the opportunity to designate Amazon as terrorist organisation, so you can starve them of resources and the light, and you don't have the problem rich with with foreign terrorist organisations that you do with american organizations that you are

being insensitive to the inevitable conjoined king of of constitutionally permissible political dissent. Bound up with potentially violent activity that something I would the history history, the modern history of the United States, particularly the sixtys and Seventys. That was, when the big lessons that that came out of it and we simply don't treat domestic threats like foreign threats, because domestic threats involve Americans were very often dissenting permissible e against the government, whereas foreign threats are threats to off into the existence of our society. So it's it's a completely different thing, but

almost? Not almost all domestic terrorist activity is not only in the usual in violation of federal law always violates state laws, and me these states, I haven't. I don't know what the exact counters among the fifty states, but many states do have terrorism laws on the box, so there's no there's no crime that can be committed in the nature of domestic. Terrorism that we don't already have an array of laws to combat it and there's nothing that would be accomplished by designating organizations is domestically

positions as terrorist organisations that were not already allowed to do now. But you know if we go back to what the situation was in the Sixtys and Seventys, we could have a lot of a lot of the problems that that you mentioned a few men To go that that the civil liberties worried about you would have surveillance of people on the fear that they might commit violence when in fact, there simply political dissenters and basically you would be policing there. They are protected activity under the first amendment which we try to resist doing yeah, I went back and wrote a call about, but the F b I did with God the clan and Sixtys and Seventys. It was extremely effect of a heavy. With the FBI owned. The clock had bicycle dry. The end in the clan was, you know, had three quarters fewer member. And they all hated each other and then no entrusted the anyone. Could they'd been infiltrated manipulated, but

They were. These are domestic political groups at their point strings of and when this this programme. Amidst this wasn't the most scandalous one can one likes clan, but you know what they did is somewhat things so rice, groups and socialist, and what not so basically said what we're gonna do that again and then then there is the problem that the clan was group so that El Paso shooter it doesn't on a group posts on a website, and you know this is we ve had this problem and in international terrorism as well, and this was why this was my costly complain about not only the Obama administration, they were, they were a more extreme case of it, but the Bush administration was this way too. You know don't want to acknowledge that,

the animated ideology of radical Islam is actually a a koranic Lee base with it. You know we're too worried that we can't walk into gum. We can't we can't both explain factually that there are certain people who interpret these scriptures in a very extreme way and at the same time say that, but you know we're not condemning all Muslim so they were afraid that we couldn't pull that off. So as a result, there was a denial of common sense, which is that there is an idiot logical nexus between two the ideology in them and the violence, and the one exception that you know the Obama administration basically trained agents that they want. They shouldn't look at ideology at all and they leaped to a false conclusions

because ideology is constitutionally protected that it it must be disregarded for intelligence purposes and think about how nuts that, as you know, if you think about how a criminal trial goes, if the I always use this example that the dawn is overheard in the back of the social club tell on the button man wakeham. I have never yet in all my years of doing this heard a first amendment defence that you don't, we shouldn't be able used as ever because he's allowed to say Wakeham, you re, so we know that not just from common sense, but there's a lot of law for this that that protected constitutional expression can nevertheless be used. The evidentiary purposes,

you're. Not you not you not directly punishing the speech you using it as evidence to prove things that are correct and it has the same effect for for intelligence. But what are the Obama people took the position that, because this this activities constitutionally protected? It's it's like. We have to close our eyes to it for intelligence purposes and the one place where they didn't take. That position was, if you could tie somebody to say Al Qaeda or ISIS. You would enable to investigate them for intelligence purposes and for law enforcement purposes. As aggressively as you wanted to and the fiction that they clung to for these purposes was that there was an icon, Al Qaeda ideology. So wasn't radical Islam. In fact, it had nothing to do with his lungs, a perversion of Islam, but they were women,

two. They were willing to say that there was an eye Al Qaeda ideology, that term that that drove violent. So we got very good. at warning the activities of formal organizations but, don't think we're good at all at taking out the loan walls now lie, I have friends who say in their there quite right about this. A lot of what we assume our long wolf turn out to be known, or you know, when you look at them hard turns out, they have all kinds of ties, but it in theory The thing is, if somebody's not attach somebody's, I like being formally directed by a terrorist organisation, and they don't come to the attention of law enforcement people that way

just animated by the hour ideology because they're watching it on the internet or in other their road going to a mosque. That's a radical mosque. Those people are very hard for us to find, and I think this problem with with White Supremacist M is even worse in that regard. Well, that's all the time we have you been listening to and now for you podcast, please check out ball of collusion, Andy's new book that hits the shelves next week. Thanks to our sponsor dividend, CAFE please check out dated boxes, new financial podcast, pod guess it is produced the incomparable Sarah shooting thanks everyone for listening and thank you, Annie, Mccarthy, thanks work.