An arch twenty Twenty Ryan crews will be the trip of your lifetime, so come we ve charted luxurious Amara, which will sail April Menteith to the twenty sixth and visit Cologne too damn Strasbourg and other glorious Rhine, river cities, waiting. You will be wonder by food. This does parties and tours plus great policy too, actions with Dan Havin, Rich Lowry, Avenue slays trials Kessler and many more great conservatives. Space is very limited visit and our crews dot com for more information.

readers and baby welcome to the Mccarthy report. I guess we're. I rich worry, discuss with any Mccarthy the latest on the meant drive against Trump in other legal and national security issues. Today, what else the impeachment inquiry and the transcript of the Trump, though Linsky, call you listening to a national you podcast, if you listening to the spot, cast Naturally, you d come: where do I ll? Have you, but please get with the program and follow us on a streaming service like Spotify or I tunes also,

you haven't already. Please order a copy of anti the best selling book, a ball of collusion, the plot to rig an election and destroy a presidency that was the subject of a presidential tweet this very morning and selfish reasons. Compel me also to mention after you by Anti spoke, if you have already only after his Andy's podcast. Please consider pre ordering my forthcoming book. The case for nationalism, how it made us powerful, united and free and now without further Ado, I welcome this very podcast through the miracle of Skype. None other than any Mccarthy Rich, or your good Andy. How are you another uneventful day. You sell this one really blew up like you know, it's just like a cloud. the horizon like last Wednesday and and now it is blotting out the sun. The Ukraine scandal

with that Trump admitting that in a phone call, he mentioned investigating Joe Biden and admitting that for whatever reason he put a hold on our defence aid to Ukraine during a certain August two month period Nancy Pelosi. Finally, across the Rubicon, after a tap dancing along the rivers edge for awhile there and announcing in impeachment inquiry, Esther Day and today we have the transcript or the causes and get to a transcript, no takers version of this first controversial conversation between Trump insolent, ski fillets of focusing on that first andean and then we'll broad. The conversation, how damning or not? Do you consider the account of this call the record the skull? Well rich? I think that if it had been given to us on a claims

late and we didn't know anything about it some of It would be jarring, but I I think that if I were in the impeachment camp And I'm not trying to be as objective as I can about this. This would be a let down, because I there was a certain bar that was certain certain expectations that were set about how damaging the conversation would be an I dont want to say that when you look at it, it's nothing burger because they certainly are some things that make you raise your eyebrows, but there is no explicit quid pro quo, spelled out in the four corners of the conversation. You know we don't

know what else is going on outside the four corners of the Congress of the conversation, none allow obviously be something that gets focused on, and I I guess, given the lead up here I would say two things about it number one d I was I was, taken aback myself at how much of that conversation was carried, buys a landscape who is the president of Ukraine and I guess this is only natural because obviously are focuses on Trump and I'm not sure I am not suggesting that the people who have been making claims about this more misleading. I'm just saying that you have given focus on on President Trump,

you know you kind of expected, seeing this a conversation have a situation where proper attracted a lot of talking, and you know he was pushing this investor. as Biden and potential holding this defence aid over over Zalewski head. and that's really not how the conversation reads- the conversation is very friendly and Wednesday carries an awful lot of it and to accept these exchanges of information a lot more of it. To my mind, comes from the one speed. Then it comes from tromp the second thing and I'm gonna men. What I said. I think this is three big take away from me and then we can talk about whatever you want, but the second thing it seemed to me, is a lot of people's reaction to this.

Going to hinge on what you think of the bar investigation. So if you, The bar investigation is strictly a political exercise, to undermine and discredit the people who have been criticising Trump and that its completely political then you're going to have one take on this. If you think that the our investigation, which is which, as we understood, it is mainly into the origins of the Trump Russia Investigation, if you think that It's a legitimate exercise in holding Justice Department and Happy IP more accountable and making sure that the exploitation of government powers, connection with a political campaign. To the extent we can prevent it does happened again then you're gonna a different tack on it,

since I am more in the second camp, I He meant to this thinking of you. I came into this. What I mean by that is, I approached the transcript the first time I saw it expecting to look for strictly. A quid pro quo sort of thing, where the benefit was too trumps strictly to trumps political interest in the campaign, namely digging up there. on his political opponent, I came away from the reading the transcript thinking that, to the extent tromp is pressing Zelensky what is pressing for help in an ongoing. U S, government Department of Justice, investigation of the origins of the trouble investigation, and that, while that has some ramifications, perhaps for Trump politically its vainly? The kind of thing that goal

between heads of states all the time, which is to say you know you do this for us. We do this you, so I didn't see it. Reading it the transcript as strictly about trumps police, go interests are not saying there was none of that. I'm just saying. I don't think that was what the dominant purpose of and the final vote, I'd make about it rich- and this is this- goes to a chapter that I wrote in ball. Of collusion about Ukraine one is that the one the reasons I won, the right but I had a number of reasons for it, but one of the things that really struck me the years of writing about this, is how much the collusion narrative by those who promoted it exploited, capitalized on the fact that Americans no very little about even the modern history, to say nothing of the politics of Ukraine.

When I felt like. I did enough work to learn about both. I had a very different idea about who all these players were and how interacted and what Ukraine, relationship was with Russia. I came away with very different thought about that. Then the kind of simplistic said peace idea that you would get from the narrative and I've become convinced that you can. understand Ukraine, particular. You can't understand into relationships between the american government. And the ukrainian government, without the standing of who the fuck yours are and how they connect up, and to be more concrete about that. you know what we ve heard about a lot is the fact that man afford who,

the republican guy and the Trump guy was married up with further with you know, Kovich who is the What were to be under what we're to understand, as the strictly pro russian guy was that was key element of the collusion merit. when you look at it more closely what you really, eyes is that the party that you know coverage was free, is pro russian in the sense that they are more favourable to the idea of having cordial relations with Russia. some of the other left of centre parties in the Ukraine Ukraine is a very different a really familiar with, because it has the big threatening bully right on the border and

you don't. On the one hand, they have that try to have good relations with Russia, the hand they have to try to keep their distance from Russia and the I don't. I don't think I think it's an oversimplification to save it. That party is, is pro russian as if it was a potent pouring because it's really not the other thing I think rich that is very important to recognise, is that man afford and the Trump people, but while they weren't the trump people at the time, and afford, and the republican consultants are not the only american political interests who play this game so that in the election, the big election that man affords guy who converge ended up winning the Obama consultants were backing one left of centre candidate, Julio term, I shall go and the Clinton political concerns

were backing I think all the guy who ultimately one and the interesting thing about that is these left of centre progressive ukrainian parties are pushing, for Ukraine to marry up with the European Union, both economically military early and every other way, not with European countries with the Euro. Paean union, whereas the party that an effort was working with much more of a sort of nationalist bent of mind, they are labelled pro russian. Because in a lot of ways the label pro Russian. I think, because that's helpful to the people who are fighting against them- they'd, rather vague, rather portray them that way

but there are actually they dared thing. Is I don't want to be either Russia or the European Union, they want to be Ukraine having good relations with both, and this gets in Ukraine to a lot of what we see here in America, which is, if you have this political, all out war warfare, which actually is in warfare in some senses in Ukraine over you dont, gash, analysed elements versus internationalist elements or globalist elements? I guess that's what were calling them these days, the breakdown. between you'd, otherwise, Eastern part of the country in Kiev that wants to have good relations with the with the European Union, and the eastern, the country and in on bastard. That is more,

along the lines of wanting to have an independent Ukraine that has good relations with Russia and much like happens in a country what happening in their country where com Option really is rife. Is the ruling party frequently and the ruling parties come to power. They frequently accuse the other side of being corrupt and they often are not it's not. not empty allegations, the very frequently there is a lot to them, but I just think that you'd. I have noticed that in the last couple days the big Defensive Biden now is this prosecuted, he was getting rid of all he wanted to get rid of in Ukraine. It had nothing to do with Hunter Biden. It had to do What's he was corrupt and everybody thought he was dropped, a european story with work. Well now that once once once you know, Kovich fled to Russia and the new, the

You know the left the Centre party took over. They thought everyone was corrupt and Europe, in union was right there with them taking every one was corrupt. Goes there on this? inside politically. and the way that this game gets played players. If you have political opposition, it's not enough to just him political arguments. You have to accuse the other side of corruption and then, when I see this transcript, just adjusted. Try to tie this up a little bit. You no one things tromp says to add to what some of you, but it's a landscape, as he is talking about this prosecutor, is you know it seems, me that you still have a lot of those people around you and I took that to be. You know you ve won

but you haven't drain the swamp. You haven't cleaned how she still have a lot of these. You know pro Europe Pro progressive, globalist types around you and one of the first things, a Lansky said to drop as we wanted. We want to drain the swamp just like you did so, there's a ladder, Fletcher. I don't I'm sorry to go on and on like this, but I think you know there's a lot a reflection of between what we are dealing with here in the way that, in our politics we no longer can have Just strictly political disagreements anymore. It always has to be done. great to devolve down to the other side is guilty of committing crimes and corruption, and that I think, when you look at dumb Ukraine,

They are much more crude about it, but their their politics is exactly the same, and it's important to sort out what the loyalty saw yet so before we so wanted delve into some specific quotes from that the record of the com, for we get too far into the pot cast. Let's hear from our sponsor this week, witches dividend CAFE the new financial podcast from our friend, a colleague David Botz, and we all have seventy options for engaging political pot. Guess even just within the National you circle of high quality pod cast content, but where's one go if they want concise, practical and hard hitting investment comforter in the pot guest world. Look no further than the dividend: calf, a definite Cathay pie gases brought you by David Vaunts and founder and chief investment officer, the mountain droop and represents an entirely unique approach to assessing the economy, the FED, the stock market and your pocketbook

Kathy, is not another wing not attempt to pit you gold and does not carry a pollyanna view of the market that calls for me because her vessels keeping their heads in the clouds. Rather, it addresses issues in a timely manner that matter to you and does so with a commitment to first principles rooted in an ideology of free enterprise and sound money, check out Dividend CAFE: dot com for look at one of the most thoughtful critically acclaimed investment companies out there and sign up for the dividend: Cathay Podcast for ongoing else, trade war, the election, the FED in so much more. That's dividend, Cathay for no nonsense: economic cometary from the bonds and group, your antidote to the thoughtlessness and laziness of today's financial adviser population.

And dividend CAFE is an officially Andy Mccarthy endorsed Podcast. Please check it out so annual. It's gotta may ask about a couple things from the transcript in the Spirit of Devils advocate. Although some of these interpretations, I would share some, I I wouldn't but they're out there. So let's go first to. where is it all right? So the present said recently value. I withheld money from Ukraine, but this could also upset the Europeans, and the Germans are putting up one thing is good for the present. Certainly in the transcript is at he expresses that to Zaleski in this cause says the Europeans are doing out all that they share that each call, Angela Merkel and Brown be her for your talking, a good game on Craig, but not putting up. And then at the end of the passage he would say, I he says I wouldn't say that is reciprocal necessarily USAID, because things

happening there, not good, but the United States has been very, very good to you. Brain. So I guess one reading of the reciprocal would be out its yeah there's an imbalance between our aid and european aid and another interpretation would be the one I think is probably better reading. Is this is a preview of what trouble say after Zaleski response a little bit too the european stuff, where goes on to say and started his his next statement. The car. I would like you to do us a favour, though, so so right, what? What are you? How do you read reciprocal while I thought rich, that reciprocal had to do with the threat To Ukraine either I thought that went into this. You know one of them that's a whence. He said. Is that The Europeans are, in particular any mention Germany and France, not helping them with.

Sanctions on the Russian Federation and Meda was kind of a roundabout way of pointing out that you know. Russia has basically taken a fifth of Ukraine and has its eye on more, what's going on in Ukraine in terms of armed revulsion and some combat, and I thought that you could be completely right. I thought what Trump Ways one trap is talking about, not that it's reciprocal and that there is you, don't do this very bad stuff going on what thought that could be an illusion to was the conditions in Ukraine and common sense saying that you know what I want to go, Trees under siege, were you know we shouldn't be counting weaker. You know we shouldn't

following up- but you know you did this- you did that- are we all even because there and the siege So that is the way I feel you read. Things are happening that are good as a reference to the current situation in Ukraine. so that is the situation in Ukraine, but more broadly. I would also say this you know. I've heard the same thing. Is you ve heard in the last few days, and I also see that president trumps allies are trying to tee this up, as he was simply being the scourge of international corruption and I think if they're gonna run with that, that is not going to fly and I'm not saying the tropics pro corruption. Don't get me wrong. But my my point is:

as I heard his. U, when speech yesterday, and as I heard you know the various things that have been said about his differences with, for example, with the former national Security adviser Bolton other more, like minded people with Balkan, then in the administration. His idea of foreign policy as I understand it is that America should blood out unless there's some american interest. That's at stake. And as a result, that's a good reason to turn. What mostly has been a blind eye to what the chinese these have been up to in connection with Hong Kong. to turn a blind eye to North Korea in connection with the ballistic missile text, the tests that they ve been doing just because they're, not long range missiles as opposed to short range missiles which actually a puddle

of our allies and a lot of or military and a lot of our interests in the region at stake. But he turned a blind eye to that because he doesn't see America's interest is gravely at stake. I find it hard to believe that a guy who's gonna take. That position is now going become interventionist on corruption and the place he's gonna start as Ukraine? I may count me sceptical on that one. I don't. I just don't think that that's happened on August We we have. Conversation goes on for a while longer than Zalewski at the end of actually, at the end of his response to trumps reciprocal statement, he says we're ready continue to cooperate. Steps, if we're, almost ready to buy more javelins from the United States for defense purposes Trump. I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot, and Ukraine knows a lot about it. So the the hustle

reputation, is let s just saying you want your javelins. This is what I need an and his and he is preparing to tell Zalewski specifically what were you won't see what what he needs, but this is this is an implicit quid pro quo yeah well, which does quid pro quo equipment quid pro quo right and Me too, be flip about that. But this goes to what I said at the big which is a lot of this, has to do with what you think of Bars- Investigation, you're, quite right here, at that point, say exactly what you said. You know I'd now, I'd like you to do us a favour. First of all, the javelins, by the way, as I am from the reporting are not in the aid that the Trump withheld, Thus, Latvia, that does not mean that basket. So do we need so a thumb so we weren't withholding javelins from them is as javelins like a rat formative thing, they would buy that we just let right

regardless well that they would have to. I mean I'm not an expert in this field, but it was not on it. Was not in the basket of aid that was withheld, and it's like its actions, the bay they talk about buying you, no other military hardware that they need you know what trump pivots too. With that point, is assistance to what I take to be bars. Investigation he's not at that point, he does God he doesn't pivot to you now read this guy, Biden might be running against me and his son is jammed up in this corruption. That's not Regos. He goes to the Eu regions of the Trump Russia Investigation, any specifically start to talk about bar in the course of this and the reason. I say this quid pro quo scientist quid pro quo, as you know, whenever it, when one world leaders,

speak to each other. Government leaders speak each other. These guys are not there to talk about the weather. Writing this you need, and we need so their role in a sense, the role quid pro quo that doesn't make them corrupt road broke wisely, and I take were trumpets, saying there to be you know I want your help with the attorney general's investigation and now again, if you one of these guys who thinks it? That's it that's a you know a political head job than you're gonna bullet. Think wanting If you believe, as I do, that, that is investigation being carried out by the United States Justice Department that that is a completely legitimate access. Eyes and would be a normal thing for us to ask before an alpine than you care to an end at its strong evidence, for your interpretation is the life of I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and I'd like you to get to the bottom of it so and everything is referring. Trump is referring to and and this part of conversation it is bad

looking twenty sixteen stuff? So then we get says: Linsky goes on for a little while about our great friends and restoration to be done openly, candidly and then Trump brings up most fraught part of this, which is you have this prosecutes you're trumps as he is very good. You shut down those on fair Rudy, Giuliani, great mare thy came to call you the call you, along with the attorney general, and this is really knows a lot about what's going on, and this really You think, there's a lot of talk about Biden, son that bind stop the prosecution and allowed people want to find out about that. So every you can do with the attorney general would be. Great Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if he could look into it, it sounds horrible to me.

Yeah. Well, that's the obviously that's the that's the problematic part. Now, if you think that its context again. This is falling into what the Obama administration was up to in connection with Ukraine, from twenty four seen when the Euro Maiden Revolution happened, and you knew Kovich was basically blown out there and a government that way much more along the lines of an alliance with the with the Obama administration, if you're asking you know if, if which The saying is, you know, there's a lot going, in Ukraine, with the Obama ministration from twenty fourteen to twenty. Sixteen and from what we ve learned about that and what's been reported about it, some of it had to do with Biden, as is mentioned

some of it had to do with the odd regions of the Trump Russia Investigation, some of it had to do with the Obama administration allegedly hasn't been proved TAT Lee hang on the law enforcement arms of the ukrainian government to investigate poor man afford and derivatively, but you know by then man afforded connected to the Trump campaign and of that. Investigation comes late in, two gave information that resulted. Man afford being blown out of his position as he was? I guess then campaign chairman to the drop campaign. I think if it's all of that, that would be a get him a thing for the president to ask his counterpart to look into but if what he's narrowly talking about is

you know I need you to do a favor. For me, we ve got to find out what Biden was up to what Hunter Biden was up to there's a perfectly the perfectly reasonable interpretation of that the chop is asking for assistance. That would help his political campaign, which would be, if was a stand alone, and it didn't relate to anything else. It would be inappropriate president to elevate his political interest over the national interest the United States, the Russian is how how folded in is. Yes, I I read this passage many times now and at times I look out and like he's talking about Biden, stopping the investigation was no was our proper can get to the bottom of it, and sometimes I get the well. You know it's it's disorder asking about Hunter too. Then we have the landscape, who receives bonds. Next prosecutor obeyed

upset my person, my candidate, approved by parliament starting new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation specifically to the camp company that you mentioned in this issue so again. What we are talking about this offline before we start recording so to ascertain that previous, is all the company that must be a reference to the dean of Charisma yeah, that energy company, that had Biden, Hunt, button on the board, and because this is not exact, transcript is no takers in real time they didn't pick up trump roof, referring to exert Nope, there's no reference to any company but you pointed out. Actually there is reference to the company and its its while earlier and that the companies crowd strike so that all the lights were to introduce a reference to a company. I'm I'm with you. I you know when I first read that I thought it was but a prisoner and what got my aunt

Paying about that was trumped. Didn't mention brezhnev. You now he said you, as you just read. He said. First of all, he says on Monday the ones who says I'm knowledgeable about that situation and then he said specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue and when I first read that I said I was reading is pretty carefully. I don't remember Trump mentioning for retina the only company trump does mention. Is crowd struck? So you might Myerst initial interpretation. Was that Trump national charisma, but wasn't captured in the notes in Switzerland Caesar fighter? But it's not not a hundred percent clear and then what do you make their been rival interpretations? This The Linsky Mecum you'll find it that the lines here in real time is Zalewski who first actions Giuliani. So one interpretation as well in a dilemma

Can a driving this this conversation more than than people would have expected another. Interpretation would be well. They already are aware of of Giuliani banging the tea bull about this and were briefed on it. So this is the one ski trying to cater to what trumps most interested in and that's that's. Why he's mentioning Giuliani House? stay there taken stuff yeah. Well, I think it's very relevant and it's the one skew brings up Giuliani First weather, What was going on outside the four corners of the content of the of this conversation brings contacts to that edged, as you suggest, is something that clearly is going to be invested, and along those lines rich, I got the sense last night, we're talking about this on none on Wednesday, the Tuesday night. I think it was to be

Washington posted this big expos ay on route activities in Ukraine, and I I get, the sense will have to see how this place itself out that a bit pulling what little hare is left on my head out to try to say to myself: why did they? with this whistle blower when We already have the conversation right if the if the big complaint was about whether there was a quid pro quo or you- and I now know as much as the whistle blower no rikers weeds. We now have a transcript of conversation, but yet The Democrats democratic, pushing very hard tat. The whistle blower come in and testify and The suggestion that there has been that there is more to the whistle blower than just the conversation and I have a sense that,

whistle blower is kind of their to shift attention from the quid pro quo aspect of the conversation now to rubies activities in Ukraine. that is, that that what was laid out in the Washington Post, Expos AY last night, is what were apt to hear if the whistle blower enter testifying. So I think that what you point. It is, is absolutely spot on in terms of what the curiosity is going to be about this now, what was Rudy up to In Ukraine prior to this, on this occasion it was what was his connection to the landscape. Who clearly knows him and mentions him. First, And how does that read on this conversation.

What should be our interpretation of the scar recession? In light of that, because I think that's where they're going with the whistle blower, so we do so about five minutes for you to get you out the door any. So, let's move to impeachment what in our friend barnyard and pointing this out. But what is there? It is there any legal consequence to the fact that there hasn't been actually vote to open and an improvement in Korea. Just said that the speaker has deeming ongoing investigations and impeachment inquiry. Does that make it an impeachment inquiry of? Just that? You know the house says it is the speaker says it's impeachment Grayson in a piece of inquiry. If you dont have a vote. yet rich- I I I said yesterday in the coverage. I thought that was police, He did yesterday was kind of a sophisticated effort to put the brakes on us to the extent that she can this this hurtling towards impeachment, because if you think about it,

Nothing is different in reality, after she spoke. It was right before she spoke. Only difference I can see. Is that why Jerry NAD for the last few months has been telling us that the Judiciary Committee, which never voted to have an impeachment inquiry, is Impeachment impeachment inquiry now hello, see speaking for the whole house is saying the same thing that It was said on behalf of the whole house, also without having a vote. So in fact nothing changed What she said was that there was not going to be an impeachment incur impeachment. The committee set up a special impeachment many. So the standing committees are going to do the work of the inquiry while that that's what I've been doing up until now, nothing changed as far as that goes by night, having a vote and not create.

A special impeachment committee, there is no specific subpoena power in the house, that's dedicated simply to impeachment equal but I think that doesn't matter, I would beings, because every standing committee, Congress has impeachment power and if they all want to take a piece of apparently six of them are involved in this thing. If they're all gonna take a piece of that, they all have been Peter Subpoena power and they can proceed. But you know it continues rich to be the case that you that you- and I am spoken about four weeks now. Policy is still trying to spare these Democrats in Trump friendly districts from having to on whether a heavy than an impinged impeachment inquiry and theirs big story now, in the Times the Washington Post in the and the left, leaning mere media about how someone

These trump vote, as I think that a trump but the Trump District Democrats, seven of them or so wrote in a bed in with the Washington Post yesterday,. Think I'm saying that they now supported an impeachment inquiry. the Roma and their only supporting an inquiry they're, not saying we should impeach drop their, not suggesting that there is an article of impeachment that one organised us around. So to me This is all still the illusion of impeachment- and I know I know we're sure- on tax on me to go on and on, but I continue to think You know whether you look back at Watergate or around. Ankara or Lewinsky in and then Clinton every time and modern story that we'd had anything that was like an impeachment inquiry. It triggered by something that we could say was either a crime or a concrete abuse of power that warranted that kind of attention he

This to me is almost like the Mahler inquiry Writ large. Basically, there saying there's a lot of now here that disturbs us. So, let's investigate until we find something so just just two other questions and then what will wrap it up. So what would this effect policy statement affected call cuz. It's been some loose commentary. Will now the house we'll have much better standing in the courts and they privileged spice or things of that nature, because it's an impeachment inquiry, cuz Flosi has deemed it as such. One and two is there any obligation? I think the got that far Mcconnell would it would hold a trial fit if articles? Actually, the house, but is: is there any obligation on the part of the Senate to hold a trial or to the scientists? Pocket and save sorry were not taken it up, there's nothing! On the second question, I think there's nothing in the constitution there may, Something in the Senate rules- I don't I don't remember that, but I think you're right, I think Mcconnell would take it up just going to be right now, if this is what they have to be, an overwhelming vote.

As far as you know, policy. What the effect on the court's would be. I think it would be minimal. You know up until now. If the court wanted to say this an official inquiry, they could have relied on Adler who's been telling us that for a couple of months, so now it's Pelosi the speaker, the housing it rather than that the chairman of the de Sherry Committee. You know she's got more juice, I suppose, but they still have taken a vote now to me. That seems like a pretty big deal. I wonder today if they held it a vote on an improvement of the very weather. they could get it well. You know this is again as as an investigator. I always wanted to know what the crime was going and I mean number one: that's the american way right you supposed to have a crime first and then you and investigate, but you know, politics? You don't have to do that, but it sure helps you know if you have a crime,

then the issue is, can you can you prove the elements of the crime by what the quantum of evidence. You have to prove it by right and you have something to organize your investigative activities. What witnesses? we need what evidence do we need, etc. If it's this law, see Goosey, like you know, this could be a political abuse of power and, let's look at it, will see if there's anything here that some that's a very different proposition. Ok! Well, that's all the time we have been listening to a national you pod, cast her sponsor this week has been dividend CAFE the new financial pod cast from David bonds. In this part gases with produced by the incomparable Sarah Shitty, please please remember to order Annie, Mccarthy's new best selling book ball of collusion and pre order. My forthcoming book the case for nationalism, thanks everyone for listening, and thank you any Mccarthy. greater talk. You rich thanks,