Jack - Avenatti Let's Go Party (feat. Michael Avenatti, Asha Rangappa, David Priess, and Tommy Hough)

Episode Date: August 6, 2018

Ep #40 - This week, Jaleesa gives an update on Ivanka's money-laundering ties, Jordan covers the latest on Giuliani's "Lube the Truth" tour, and AG breaks down Butina and the NRA. Plus, we have interviews from Asha Rangappa, David Priess, Tommy Hough, and the one and only Michael Avenatti! Enjoy!

Season 4 of How We Win Is Here For the past four years, we've been making history in critical elections all over the country. And last year, we made history again by expanding our majority in the Senate, eating election denying Republicans and crucial state house races, and fighting back a non-existent red wave. But the Maga Republicans who plotted and pardoned the attempted overthrow of our government now control the house. Thanks to gerrymandered maps and repressive anti-voter laws. And the chaotic spectacle we've already seen shows us just how far they will go to

seize power, dismantle our government, and take away our freedoms. So, the official podcast of the persistence is back with season four. There's so much more important work ahead of us to fight for equity, justice, and our very democracy itself. We'll take you behind the lines and inside the rooms where it happens, with strategy and inspiration from progressive change makers all over the country. And we'll dig deep into the weekly news that matters most and what you can do about it, with messaging and communications expert,

co-founder of Way to Win, and our new co-host, Jennifer Fernandez-Ancona. So join Steve and I every Wednesday for your weekly dose of inspiration, action and hope. I'm Steve Pearson. And I'm Jennifer Fernandez-Ancona. And this is How We Win. And this is How We Win.

Thanks for listening to Muller She Wrote. The She in Muller She Wrote is no accident. Did you know we are 100% women-owned and operated? Every single person that helps make this podcast possible identifies as a woman, our creative and web design, our engineer and producers, our editors and digital media manager, our agent, our ad execs, our merchandising manager, and even the postal service clerk

that helps me with shipping in our PO box. All women and all LGBTQ plus allies. We will continue to employ and partner with women as our podcast grows, but we could use your help. Please support women in podcasting by visiting mullershoewrote.com and become a patron today. So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what obviously what the opposition is. I'm not aware of any of those activities.

I have been called a surrogate at a time of truth in that campaign, and I didn't have and I have communications with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin for? I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about a mother than he will respect me. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. So, it is political. You're a communist! No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring. Like all members of the oldest profession I'm a capitalist.

Hello, welcome to Muller She Wrote. I am your anonymous host, A.G. I work for Trump, ultimately, and he's purging non-loyalists now, so it's not just about smashing the hatch act, but that's why I go by A.G. With me, as always, is Julie Sojonson. Hi. And Jordan Coburn. Hello. Happy Manaforts on Trial Week! Yeah! on trial week. Yeah. Woo! I've decided that's the theme song for Manafort.

So I think it fits him. I know you'll probably hate me for getting it stuck in your head But it's a far-sight better than blue by I fall 65 Which we will also hear later in the show this week is a lot like the last two things are insane and dots are connecting We should have known by Trump's Twitter insanity Sunday night and again Wednesday Attacking Mueller personally along with the press and now LeBron James on Friday. Yes. Usually when he's unhinged on Twitter, it's because Mueller has told his lawyers to tell

him something that pisses him off. I'm excited for the show this week. We have some amazing guests. Remember our bonus episode in week 24? We talked about David Priest. He's an ex-CIA officer who briefed Mueller for a year. If you're a patron, you would have heard that article. He wrote for a law fair blog. Yeah, and he briefed Mueller when Mueller was the FBI director, and he learned all sorts of things about how Mueller operates. Well, we have him on the show this week,

along with local San Diego City Council Progressive Canada for District 6 Tommy Howe, long-time friend of mine. We got another chance to talk to Asha Rangapa this week, who I treasure. I love her. Yes, and of course, the one and only Michael Avanati, we got an interview with him. So, Jalisa, you're going to give us an update on Ivanka and some money laundering, Sitch. And Jordan, you have the latest on Giuliani's Lube, the Truth Tour. God, he just jewels. Yes. I'm going to go over Bhutina and the NRA. But first, let's get into the news with just the facts.

We found out Monday that Manafort made over $60 million working for Yennecovich or Yannacovich, some people call him. Weirdel Yankovich. We found this out because Manafort filed a motion to keep jurors from hearing about his work with the Ukraine, but Mueller filed back saying those details are necessary to prove how much money Manafort failed to pay taxes on and to show Manafort's ties to oligarchs that supported the party of regions that paid him. Further, Mueller argued that Yanaković's ouster is relevant because it explains Manafort's work with a different party

and why his income dropped dramatically, giving him motive to commit bank fraud, loan fraud. Then, remember when Manafort filed that civil suit in the DC court with Judge Jackson, if you're nasty? Two counts saying Mueller should have never been appointed and Mueller was out of his scope. Well, and that's how we got that four-page redacted Rosenstein memo that detailed what

Mueller was allowed to investigate Manafort on, including crimes of collusion with Russia and money stuff. Well, I've been saying that the quote, crimes of collusion part, along with multiple other clues, means Manafort will be facing superseding indictments of conspiracy or aiding and abetting Russian interference. Well, the judge dismissed his scope complaint because Rosenstein's memo was pretty clear, but asked him to write a brief in a minute order. And then when she got the brief, she dismissed the other count.

So she dismissed them all. I like how he had to show his work and then still failed. Well, Maniford appealed that decision, but Monday evening, he dropped his appeal. He dropped his appeal saying future indictments against him are invalid because Mueller shouldn't have been appointed or because he's acting outside of his scope. So think about that. Is it a sign that he's going to flip? If he was going to, it would have served him better to do so before the trial started, so as not to waste the court's time. Ellis doesn't seem like a super forgiving dude about shit like that.

But Manafort, Ellis is the judge in the current case. But Manafort has until the verdict to flip. And even after that, he has a whole other trial in DC in September. And when people call Virginia the rocket docket, they aren't kidding. Day one, they had the jury seated by lunch, six men, six women, four alternates.

Pretty white jury too. And they already called their first witness, Tad Devine, to the stand on day one. Days two and three, the prosecution spent the entire time talking about Manafort's lavish lifestyle. But they were limited because Ellis said Manafort is an on trial for being rich. And all the money he spent could actually taint the jury because jury's hate super rich people. There was a moment on day two when prosecutors said they might not call gates to the stand,

mostly because the defense's opening remarks, what happened when they gave their whole upfront opening remark they blamed everything on gates, possibly tainting him as a witness. But Friday we did learn that gates will likely take the stand probably today or tomorrow Monday or Tuesday. But only after Manafort's CPA is done testifying. She started on Friday, she's going to finish up today.

And her testimony is probably the most damning so far. This is after all the rich stuff, he spent $15,000 on a, I don't know, what was it, an ostrich coat? Yeah, I like that because he wishes he could stick his head in the sand. And it's all ugly shit too. It's all from the house of B. Jan. So B. Jan, most of Favi, we have our eye out. You know, I think it's interesting. You mentioned the six men, six women, six alternates.

It sounds like a man of Ford or G or alternate. Yeah, yeah. Gross. Man on orgies. But she has to finish testifying and she's been given use immunity. She's one of the five people given immunity. And she testified that she lied about Manafort not having foreign bank accounts. And she said she falsified loan documents. And an interesting piece of evidence that came out during her testimony is an email she sent stating Manafort was expecting a $2.4 million

dollar payout of fees in November of 2016. November of 2016. Interesting. I wonder what that was for. Yeah, I wonder if some major shift in the political climate happens around then. Yeah, yeah. November, what happens in November? I can't. It sounds like release is birthday.

That's probably it. That's probably what it is. That's the Sagittarius. That's the only important. It's probably coming out. Yeah, I can't, you know I'm lost. I don't know what else happens in November. But yeah, I wonder what that was for.

Who was from? It's not in the email. So that's really interesting. But like I said, all any collusion, Steph is gonna come up in a later trial. I think he's still trying to roll him. I really do. But in any case, Man of Fort is.

But. But. Fucked. That was a good one. That was good. You really set it up like an alley hoop for me there. Yeah, you had a little crack on there, but you'd point back.

Exactly. You found it. Yes. It's good. Thank you. You found it. I am not a singer, but you guys make me feel so special. You're so special.

Also Monday, Giuliani made the rounds on CNN and Fox News, and Jordan's gonna go over that later in the show. Yeah, he's in L town. Oh my God. Then you guys, this is an actual headline from Monday, quote, a Virginia Republican who has been linked to white supremacists now faces accusations of liking big foot erratica. Unquote. I had to bring this up on behalf of Greg Proops.

Nobody voted in that election. Let's be honest. I think it was the lowest voter turnout. You can go back and Google me on this. And your listeners, I'm sure, will, because they're all sitting in a house covered with, you know, tin foil over the windows, a van that says John Lennon was killed by bigfoot. But... See, Greg, it's not my listeners.

It's the GOP. So anyway, that was just a funny little call back. I thought a story dropped Tuesday that Ivanka could be caught up in a money laundering scheme from a while back. At least it's gonna go into more on that later. Don't start warming to Ivanka. Then we learned the likely reason that Mueller was on the plane to New York.

Remember that photo of him and done it. First it was confirmed he was going to New York. So we were right. Okay. Thank you. And it was to discuss the case. But it appears he has referred a bunch of lobbyists, likely that he found when he was investigating Manifort, a bunch of lobbyists that failed to register under FARA. And these are Democrats as well as Republicans. There's some Obama guys in there. There's some Clinton guys in there. There's some Obama guys in there. There's some Clinton guys in there.

There's some Bush guys in there. There's a lot of Trump guys in there. All obvious. They're all obvious. And he handed all that off to New York. I have a question. Yeah, really quick. On the topic of Mueller,

shifting things over to SDNY, do you think that he's only going to do that on things where he's confident that they'll be convicted? Huh. I don't know. Maybe. I think it kind of goes more along the lines of him trying to make sure he stays within his scope, even though his scope covers everything. Right.

The optics, Marcel. And also, it's got to have something to do with his resources. He only has 17 hardened Democrats to help him. That's so true. Yeah. Fake news now. It was nine then it was 13, 17. It just keeps going.

Now it's this entire. Yeah, they're multiple. Eventually, that's what we do. Democrats, if you get us wet after midnight, you get us wet after midnight, you get us wet or feed us after midnight, we multiply. Yeah, we're like bunnies.

Yeah, we're grandmothers as well. Yeah, yeah, see, oh, over a young, we're young. But I knew that one. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Right, it's the movie. Yeah. Yeah, the little furry thing. They multiply. Yeah, if you get away, feed them after midnight. And you know, I knew that one. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's right. It's the movie. Yeah. Had a little furry thing.

They multiply. Yeah, that's terrifying. If you get away, feed them after midnight. And you know, I've got this sucks, is there's no cutoff for like after midnight. Like how long? When can you feed them? That's me after midnight. After the clock.

6 a.m. Sun, Sun, right? I don't know. And then how do they even know what time zone they're in? It's whatever. Very complex creatures. They get jealous. They get jealous.

Then you guys, sometimes beans can come true. We reported last December, December, that McGann told Trump about Flynn lying to the FBI before he asked Comey to let it go. That would indicate corrupt intent, right? The obstruction of justice. If you remember, in January, Dowd and Seculow wrote a big, long letter to Mueller saying that Trump couldn't have obstructed justice because he didn't know Flynn had lied to the FBI or that he was under investigation when he asked Comey to drop the case.

Well this week, Murray Was, learned that there's a confidential White House memo that Mueller has that states that when Trump pressured Comey, he had just been told by two of his top aides, Prebus and McGahn, that Flynn was under investigation. Was told us about this last December and we reported it to you as well, but now it's back in the news again. Yeah, so beans. Trump and the bean stock.

Yeah, he knew. That gets to the whole, what did he know and when did he know it, the old Watergate question. The Trump question is like, does he know anything? Like, sorry. He did know though, the question was not investigation. But he loves to play stupid and it's convincing often. Well, I don't have his playing.

That's really satisfying though. They're reporting. Yeah, yeah. It is. I feel warm and fuzzy inside. Then Wednesday, Trump tweeted that sessions should end the Mueller investigation right now. And then Sarah Sanders defended Trump by saying he said, should and not, it wasn't a command,

it was just an opinion. So he was fighting back, not obstructing justice, as those two things can't happen at the same time. That just makes me say, there's some sort of crime immunity closet. If you're fighting back, you can't be, you know, you'll be in crime. Gymnastics on this.

So logic is just crazy. It's all over the place. Yeah. It just reminded me of like if you were running down the street and you said, let the air out of those cops tires and I said, okay, and I let the air out of the cops tires and then they could be like, you were obstructing just as I'm like, no, man, I was just fighting back.

Yeah. I was just fighting back. Yeah, let's see how well that works. Yeah, but there was no crime. There was no crime. Just, Julie said she didn't commit a crime. Right. Oh, well, yeah, whatever.

It's crazy. It doesn't have to be an underlying crime for obstruction to happen. Exactly. Trump's going to tweet like, the third reg should rise again. And then he'll be like, it wasn't an order. I meant shouldn't.

Oh, yeah. Then Mueller got back to Giuliani and the ongoing saga of trying to get an interview saying he'd cut down the number of obstruction questions. And that might have been what set him off on this session's tweet. I keep thinking maybe in that letter, he mentioned a subpoena, but that's not been reported anywhere. That's just conjecture.

So what is Mueller's endgame here? Today we are joined by the man who delivered the president's daily brief to Mueller and Ashcroft after 9-11 as the daily intel briefer at the cia he wrote the book the president's book of secrets the untold story of intelligence briefings to america's presidents he has a phd and polysai from duke please welcome everyone david priest hi david welcome to muller she wrote hello joy to be with you and everything you just said is true there's no fake news in any of that. Well, I'm glad to high five for fist bump, another PhD, awesome. Nailed it.

Sorry about that dissertation you had to write. It was a pain, but I haven't really looked back at it since, and I'm glad I haven't, because I'm sure it would look like crap compared to what I would expect of myself now. Yeah, no, I threw mine away. So this week, the ongoing saga continues. I feel like these are the days of our lives with the back and forth between the special council, Robert Mueller and the president and his awesome team of capable lawyers about a sit-down interview,

right? It's been going on for months. And as you heard, Mueller this week sent a letter back to Trump saying he would cut down the number of obstruction questions, but still wants an interview. And you briefed Mueller for a year, I believe, and know him pretty well, at least the way his mind works. Why do you suspect he's even entertaining this back and forth and not just jam in a subpoena up his butt? I don't understand. Yeah. First of all all i think he avoids

jamming things up his interview is but that's supposition you're right he has to think of the thing really professional here that actually full circle but the the thing is i think we have to all be humble because when muller and the special counsel's office have dropped indictments sometimes it has been completely out of the blue and even some of the people watching it

twenty four seven have been surprised so there's a huge caveat up front which is we don't know exactly what they're thinking we do have some t-leaves that we can read for me the t-leaves on this one aren't necessarily things that we're getting out of current reporting it's more the history of presidential judicial issues so if you look at the history of things

like calling the president out, whether it's trying to get documents out of the executive branch, whether it's trying to get the president to sit down for something like this, you run into these big constitutional issues. What I suspect Mueller is doing, because he is such a strategic and tactical thinker at the same time being able to do both.

What I think he's doing is anticipating, if I were to subpoena him and I have not taken every possible step toward accommodation, then the courts would be less likely to force him to fully cooperate. Whereas if I have been to over backwards, if I have taken months and months of talking to lawyers, trying to get him to cooperate, narrowing down the questions, I think there's a higher chance in his mind that the courts would agree if it came down to that kind of a decision on whether this would be allowed or not. Okay, so he's doing his due diligence. Again, kind of part of his MO of having a totally buttoned up airtight, bulletproof case, like how he keeps handing stuff

off to SDNY or US attorneys, particularly in cases like the Cohen case where they've got Weiselberg coming in. He didn't want to cross that red line, Trump drew about looking into his finances, even though he has every right under his appointment to do so. But he still wants to, I feel like he's creating this case that can't be shot down. And if is shot down, we'll only look bad for those who shoot it down. He is making it as easy as possible to get the ultimate goal he wants, which is to get some presidential input for this and eliminate the probable barriers that are out there. I mean, listen, historically, the main argument why presidents shouldn't be subpoenaed and

should not be subject to things like this is because the president is too busy. The weight of the free world is on his shoulders he doesn't have a minute to spare for something that could in theory be frivolous uh... his twitter account would say otherwise exactly this president has blown that out of the water because you can just look at his public schedule you can look at what he's tweeting you can look at what people with good access

are saying. This man can take a couple of hours off of watching Fox News to participate in perhaps the most importantly go case of our generation. So to me, the president has undermined his own case why he can't do this, but Mueller isn't counting on that. Mueller is making sure he is doing everything possible to make accommodations so that if it comes down to force, he's gonna win.

I don't know, David. The president has a pretty full golf schedule. Yeah, you can ask questions between swings because I have a feeling he's not really a rapid player. You know what I mean? No, yeah, when he's driving around on his own greens, yeah, maybe after he hits it into the water hazard, he's got a few minutes to answer some questions. I'm not, I'm not entirely sure, but yeah, Obama was the golfer, of course, not this wonderful

man. I was wondering if you can maybe, after, you know, speaking with and briefing Mueller for so long, if you can tell us a little bit about how you think this end game is going to wind up for us because I mean, he's having, we know from the Washington Post that he's having the wind down discussions, the same kind of wind down discussions that Komi had with his group at the end of the Hillary investigation. Where do you see this going? There's this whole public discourse between whether there's going to be a presidential indictment or a report or a recommendation for impeachment etc. And I was wondering if you maybe could give your insight on where you find this, where

you see this possibly ending up based on your knowledge of the man. Sure. Again, one caveat on the confidence of what we're going to say is yes, there's been reporting saying that some of those wind up discussions are going on, but we have to remember there was reporting that we all took to the bank and I think that the majority of Americans still believe is true, which is that Paul Manafort was served with a no-knock warrant and they knocked down his door to get in. And we heard the testimony this week in the Manafort trial when in 11 year veteran of the Bureau, the person who was the seizure officer on the same, the special

agent testified and said, hell no, I knocked three times. And then we went in and we found him standing there. It was not a no-knock warrant. So some of the reporting, if it's truthy, we have to be careful not to run with it. So with that caveat, it would surprise me if Mueller has not already thought through a lot of this end game, whatever the extent of his discussions along his lines are. And that's for a couple of reasons. One, in working with him, I noticed in the very complex, very complicated topics I was briefing,

he was looking both toward the immediate issue. He was looking what are we going to do with this person? How can we follow up on this terrorist? But at the same time, he was asking questions that sometimes made me shake my head. And then only later did I realize, oh, he's also looking at the bigger picture at the same time. And that ability to both process something tactical in real time while also having a mind to the end game was unusual in my experience. That tells me that it's going to be unlikely that he's going through this process without doing things, like strategically shipping things off to SDNY,

or having some of the wrap-up conversations on the things that have not wrapped up yet. The other thing that applies here is the fact that we are still largely in a black hole on what's actually happening. We hear from people who have testified, we hear from people who have gone in for questioning, but we don't know exactly what they've fully covered and not. The fact that they've announced that the Manhattan Madam is probably, we hope, going to go in to testify to the grand jury. Well, I would have thought that the stuff

having to do with Roger Stone and WikiLeaks had been handled months ago. And the fact that they're just getting to her now tells us either that they're tidying up some issues there or that there's another angle there that we don't even know about having to do with her activities in New York 10 years ago. Yeah, and she was brought in yesterday

to speak to the grand jury, and I believe it's in the special council's investigation, not in a handoff. That's what the reporting has said, and it was, I believe, a voluntary interview. But again, things like this have surprised me because it would not have surprised me if they would have brought her in six months ago to talk,

because they clearly seem to be going down that Wikiy leaks train track already given the indictments that dropped and the fact that they're bringing her in now I can make an argument both ways either that means they're tying together a few loose ends trying to get every possible thing they can on the Roger Stone angle or there could be something that we just have no clue about because give him credit for muller has kept us on the edge of our seats when it comes to what he's known when he's known it and when he drops the indictments yet he's airtight to we don't learn about what he's doing until four months

after it's happened i wrote in the uh... the law fair blog article that i wrote about my experience briefing muller i wrote that his spokesman is the quietest person in Washington where everybody likes talking about everything they're doing, but he is not putting information out there that needs to be out there. And that goes along with my experience with him that he had a clear disdain for any unnecessary publicity or just

extraneous noise. He just wanted to do his job. Yeah, and I think his job doesn't only include technicalities, but, you know, as you said, bigger picture stuff. If we'd, we'd report on his master's thesis, I read something into that where the World Court should have won on a technicality, but looking at the larger picture of how it affects citizens and apartheid and, you know, zeitgeists and things like that, he takes all of that into account. I've noticed

that doesn't surprise me again i had a limited experience with him more than most to be fair but still limited is i gave the daily intelligence reports spending less than an hour virtually every day with him but that was five or six days a week during a very intense period after nine eleven so i did get to see the way he worked I did get to see the way he worked. I did get to see the way he tackled problems in real time. And that sounds about right. That the mind working on several different levels

at the same time is really good preparation for this kind of investigation. So do you think he's going to indict, or do you think it's the report? We're leaning toward report, but. Yeah, we never got back to that question. Did we thank you? Here's what I think is most likely but I wouldn't put my life savings on the line on the line on it yeah I just don't have that full confidence

here because we don't know I suspect based on what we've seen so far that there will be a robust very detailed much like the NFL report that he did on the Ray Rice case, much like the indictments we've seen so far. The team he's created is absolutely fantastic at detail, at evidence, at argumentation, at logic and reasoning within the indictments. It would surprise me if the report to Congress were not that robust in that detailed, giving the full case. I think an indictment is hard simply because he has shown that he plays by the book, and

if the current DOJ guidance is we do not indict a sitting president, then he would have to be having some other conversations with Rod Rosenstein and perhaps others at Justice right now about whether that policy were shifting. Because I don't think he'd do something outside of that policy for the sake of doing it. One way around this is what ended up happening in Watergate is they faced the issue, a dissension on the legal team. Do we indict Nixon or do we not?

And they settled on that middle ground of, we'll make all this available, but we are going to call him an unindicted co-conspirator that's the direction this seems to be going and that puts a lot of pressure on the president and those in the house representatives who ultimately will have to judge if he comes up for impeachment

whether he's impeached or not and then of course moved on for trial and senate yeah the only way i see him in dieting or recommending an indictment is if rose and steiness fired or removed and Benz Kowski takes over who's a, you know, Trump friendly dude by the rules Mueller can recommend an indictment to Benz Kowski knowing that he'll say no, which would automatically trigger a full report to both parties in Congress. And that could be a run, an end run around having the whole investigation squash. And I know, and I like, I have so much faith that he's thought about since day one, what happens if he's fired, what happens if Rosenstein's fired, what happens if this happened. He's got all these fail safes with the dead man switch and possible sealed indictments. And I don't think that Trump is going to outsmart him on anything.

I think your logic is right on all of those points. The other point I throw out there is the fact that in my experience, he is not a, he's not somebody who wants to go rogue. He's not somebody who wants to go freelance. And if there's something he's going to do that is outside the ordinary, damn straight, he's going to have all of his docs lined up in a row to do that he's not gonna do it because he has an agenda or he has a belief or he has an axe to grind that's not the man I got to know and I haven't seen any

evidence in this investigation that he and the many highly capable people that he's built around him on the team there I haven't seen any evidence that they are seeking a particular result I't seen any evidence that they are seeking a particular result. I've seen strong evidence that they are seeking a result that they're trying to get to the truth as best they can find it, but I have not yet seen any evidence that they are trying to take down the president or trying not to take down the president. If that's the result, either way, I think we're going to have to have faith in that. All right, well, David Priest, thank you so much for your insights on this.

I've been wanting to talk to you since we covered your law fairer blog back, I think in episode 24, April, I believe it was. I appreciate you taking the time to come on and talk to us. Do you have a book coming out? You wanna tell everybody about that? Oh, sure, yeah, in three months, so I guess early November, my next book comes out, and this one again relates to the issue about that? Oh, sure. Yeah. In three months, so I guess early November,

my next book comes out. And this one again relates to the issue we're talking about, but from a very different angle. My first book was about how presidents and those around them get their intelligence reports. So we talked about top secret intelligence to the presidents, the briefings that I was a part of. But the next book has to do with presidents

from a different angle, which is, how do we get rid of them? When you have a president who's unpopular, unfit, unable, how do we actually remove them from office? So that book, how to get rid of a president, is scheduled to come out in November and may be very relevant after midterms when things like impeachment could be on the conversation again. Yeah, one would hope. All right, well, thank you so much for your time today. And everybody follow at David Pris on Twitter, check out his new book coming out in November, How to Get Red of a President. Thanks so much again for joining us.

You bet. Talk to you soon. All right, so in Roger Stonehenge this week, he is aid Miller. He filed a motion not to testify, and he was denied. So he has to come in for questioning. And the grand jury questioned the Manhattan Madam on Fridays. We talked about with David there. Nice. And you guys stones on the chopping block. That dude's going down. Yeah, it's long overdue. Yeah. We also learned Mueller is trying to get an interview with

Emma Agalarov. He's the pop star, Kazakhstan, now Russian pop star, who helped set up the first Trump tower meeting with Goldsteel. He and his father, his father's a billionaire with ties to Putin, they partnered with Trump for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. What's interesting about that trip to Moscow is that it could appear that Trump decided to run for president on that trip, perhaps talking to Russians about it. And the reason I say that is because of something peculiar that happened this week. Friend of the pod, Scott Stedman, we've had him on before, he published a story about another unnamed Playboy playmate that was allegedly paid $185,000 for her story by AMI in another catch and kill scenario. But Stedman was forced to pull the story under the threat

of a lawsuit. Now, that's alleged. I can't. I am. Yeah. Now, I couldn't care less how Trump gets his micro-pean wet. In fact, I don't ever want to think about it. But what Stedman found important in this story, not so much that he was with another playboy playmate and paid her off, which does could possibly have campaign finance, violation, implications. But the important part about the story was the timing. She was paid off shortly after Trump returned from Russia. And as we all know, Stormi Daniels attorney, Michael Avenatti, has said he's now got three more women coming forward with payoff stories.

And I wanted to ask him if they were at all related. So let's take a listen. This week, friend of the pod, Scott St Stedman published a story on medium about a former playboy playmate that received a $185,000 pay off from AMI for the rights to her story and yet another catch and kill scenario. In a twist, AMI threatened to sue Stedman over the story so they had to pull it from medium. And with us today to discuss all this is the attorney for story medanials,ael avanati mr. avanati welcome to muller she wrote great to be here thanks for having

i'm so excited to have you first of all can you tell us if this woman that scott steven wrote about that was paid off in twenty fourteen is one of the three women that you say have come forward to you to talk about their pay off from trump she is not okay so this is an additional person then. Correct. I have not vetted the woman at issue in that story.

I have a pretty good idea who it is, but it is not one of my clients. Oh, that's interesting. Would you take her on as a client if she came to you? I have no idea. I mean, it would depend on whether I believe, or whether I've found her to be credible, what exactly the story was.

There's two exactors for me to just make a determination. Okay. Well, that would indicate that the three women you're speaking to, you find credible and that you've decided to take them on as clients because you believe their stories and you want to represent them. Correct. So, what's important about this particular story, the one I'm talking about with Stedman, is the timing, at least to me and my head, not so much that he's yet another

former playboy, playmate, and that this is yet another catch and kill scenario. But it's more that she was paid off shortly after Trump had returned from the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2014, and that sort of corroborates the steel dossier's account of when he decided to run for president. And I know you probably can't tell us who the three women are that have come to you, but can you maybe tell us when they were paid off? In 2015 and 2016. Okay.

So, that kind of spans a longer period of time then, but it was clearly after he had decided to run for president. Yes. I don't think there's any question about that. So going forward, are you going to be releasing or making public these three women that you're speaking to? It all depends on whether the three clients decide whether they're prepared to come forward and share their personal experiences and their personal stories and disclose their names

and other information that's up to them. Were they also represented by Davidson at some point? I'm not at liberty answer that question. That makes sense. Just for some backstory for our listeners, Davidson is the attorney that was previously representing Stormy Daniels. And we've speculated on this show that he may have been

in Cahoots with Co in the whole time. You ran into Coen. I heard in an interview at a restaurant in New York of all places, because it's such a small town. And you sort of pitched him like, hey, we should be working together. And he said to speak to his lawyers, have you done that? Have are you working maybe on partnering?

I want to be really clear about something. That's not what happened. A lot of what has been reported is just not accurate relating to our communications. I randomly ran into Michael Cohen in a restaurant that I've been going to for a better part of 15 years, but did not then in a number of mortals with a friend of mine. I've randomly ran into him. And I had occasion to 10 birds. We spoke at length.

And then there were subsequent communications with his representatives and him. And ultimately those communications broke off. I see. Well, I appreciate you clearing that up for us because, yeah, sometimes the stories can get, they can run away from us. Yeah, don't believe don't believe how a girl is a character of himself. I usually don't believe anything that he says. So I appreciate that. Well, you know what, I'm glad that you were able to join us today. I know that you couldn't tell us much about these three women,

but I'm glad that you were able to tell us at least that this woman that Scott Stedman wrote about is different from these additional three women. It just sounds like there's a lot of them out there and hopefully we'll get to hear all of their stories at some point. I'm hopeful of that as well. Again, it's really up to the clients because there's the ones that have to put so much on the line by coming forward publicly. I 100% understand that from experience myself. So, Mr. Avonatti, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it and I hope you have a great weekend. Thank you. Thanks for having myself. So Mr. Avonatti, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. And I hope you have a great weekend.

Thank you. Thanks for having me. Take care. No problem. Bye bye. Guys, there were some bombshells in that interview. It's a short interview. And he was to the point.

But first, the woman's steadman reported about, he says, was not one of his three women that he's representing. And secondly, I didn't his three women. His hair. No. One of the three women that he's representing, second lad in his three women. Because, no, one of the three women that he's representing, it's not, it's an additional woman. And secondly, he told me when they were paid off,

as you just heard, 2015 and 2016, which would seem to verify reporting in the dossier, the steel dossier, saying that women were recently paid off, quote unquote, recently. And that was written in 2016. Oh. So that seems like it could corroborate the steel dossier. That timeline is sketchy, yeah.

So put some beans on that, because I don't think we've heard the end of the timing of these payoffs. Also, please support our friend Scott Stedman. Yeah. He needs some help. You can help him out at paypal.me-slash-m-stedman. He's a great guy. Great journalist.

He is 22 years old. That's incredible. Below is my mind the kind of sources and methods that he's pulling up. Stedman. He's a great guy. Great journalist. He is 22 years old. That's incredible. Below is my mind the kind of sources and methods that he's pulling up. Yeah, yes, more guys. With his reporting. But that timing is so auspicious. Let's say Mueller has a bunch of evidence

that Trump conspired with Russians in his 2013 trip. And Mueller wants to prove that, or add evidence to that pile, by showing that he began paying women off as soon as he returned, could be an indicator that he had in fact decided to run for office. Exactly. During his time in Russia. Yes.

Woo! That is, this is where I love how the legal work gets very, very interesting, because even if Mueller doesn't have the admission from Trump, like, yes, I decided at this time, Mueller, it sounds like he could use this as a motive, right? It's just how it works sometimes, right? Like when they get as close as they can and a jury decides if that's close enough, it could definitely help establish a timeline. Right.

When he decided to run for president and who influenced him. Right. It's not going to help him with any potential charges against him or anything, but it was establishing a timeline. Yeah. And I mean, of course, it could go toward campaign violation, totally.

And shit like that. And those are felonies. Absolutely, yeah. And it's important. I don't want to downplay the importance of that. But much like the whole Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky thing, I was like, I don't care. You know, but he lied.

And so, you know, you, that's when people cared. You broke the one thousand and one you lied. Right. And Trump, as far as lies go, I mean, if we're going to get him, yeah, if that's going to be the thing, then he's going down. Yeah. For sure. Yeah. It gets a like card though, until he talks to federal investigators on the record. Yeah. And Trump wants to, he says, sit down with Mueller and he's at Bedminster this weekend and he's thinking about it. And and Giuliani, I think I talk about this later,

if I repeat it, I apologize, but I think Giuliani told him they'll give him an answer in 10 days. That was from Thursday. So probably by next episode, we'll know what the decision is. Interesting. Then you guys, holy crap.

Cohen is wrapped up in the Marshall Plan. What is the Marshall Plan? We've talked about this, I think episode three or six or something. Couple of times two. The one with Zach Miller. Oh yeah, yeah, six. And basically Flynn was texting Copson on the day

as during an auguration day, saying, we're gonna rip up sanctions, buddy. And Copson owns this company. They had this whole plan to build a bunch of nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia, and he wanted sanctions to be ripped up because he wants to partner with Russia to do this. And so that's why the easing of the sanctions was so important, okay?

So according to the Wall Street Journal, a top Trump donor named Franklin Haney agreed to pay co-in $10 million if he successfully helped obtain funding for three dozen nuclear power plants in the Middle East. Oh no. A proposal submitted calling for finishing the Belfant reactors in Alabama and then another $300 million to fund Middle East. A proposal submitted calling for finishing the bell font reactors in Alabama

and then another $300 million to fund Middle East reactors over the next 40 years, and that the company proposing, writing this proposal, would receive $1 billion annually. And you know who wrote the proposal? Copson. Wow. Do you know who would partner with the US on building these reactors according to Copson's proposal. Who? Russia. The plan is to complete the reactors in Alabama and then use them as training centers for the Middle East construction project. Copson also said repeatedly that Alabama's two senators could help pull the project together, who was the senator at the time in Alabama.

There was Rich Shelby. Oh, oh, wow. And you guessed it, Jeff Sessions. Oh, my goodness. And guess what would have to go away to make this project happen? Russian sanctions. It all is like a complete circle. Mm-hmm.

That's insane. Nuclear being reported. And you've been reported that. Ooh, I'd have to look it up. It's going to be in the notes. I have the story. I know we touch on the Marshall Plan here and there, but it's almost like every time we address it, there's something that connects it. Nothing ever goes back and it's like, oh, but it's almost like every time we address it,

there's something that connects it. Nothing ever goes back and it's like, oh, maybe it's not that. It's like, it just gets, I mean, because it has to be something, right? It's not all going on for nothing. And we know sessions was at the Mayflower, which is the Marshall Plan meeting,

basically with Bud McFarland, who was the mentee for KT McFarland. Right. And you're gonna be impressed when Bootina gets tied into this later in the show. It only makes sense. It makes total sense. But Cohen was offered $10 million to help secure the funding for that project proposed by Copsin, and it was reported on this week. This feels like some matrix that's just falling in a place, but then it's like a really shitty one.

Yeah, I'm really happy that not happy. Happy is a weird word. Our listeners have known about this for a while. And to see this reporting come out, it's just, it's very, I don't know, it's very interesting that I feel like I've done my job. Like I've set all this up so that when the shit comes out, people go are prepared. Oh, that's that. And that's what I hear from people when they approach me about the podcast

is that they really appreciate the fact that it's even when they're behind like if they're April or whatever it's still all very relevant to this day and that's so useful. Yeah, it will be yeah, it will continue to be finally on Friday a judge granted a Buzzfeed news Motion to compile testimony from James Comey over the dossier. So they face having to now answer questions about how and when the FBI obtained the dossier. Comey has to probably go in and answer those questions. Victory that? Yep. I don't know if you call it a victory that. Well, it's a pretty sad victory, but yeah, anyway, you guys, thems the facts. We'll be right back. Hey, Mueller junkies, thank you so much for supporting our show and supporting women in podcasting. I need to ask you for a quick favor that will not cost you a dime. Please head over to Apple Podcasts and give us a rating.

And then subscribe. That simple act goes a long way to helping us get the word out about the Mueller investigation. And more importantly, it expands our efforts to flip Congress blue in November. And don't forget, follow us on Twitter at Mueller She Wrote to be automatically entered to win a PlayStation 4. Don't ask. Thank you so much for listening. We would not be here without you.

All right, welcome back. Hot notes. All right, this week Jordan is going to go over the ongoing Rudy Giuliani Loub the truth tour. But first, Julie, so you have some interesting news about Ivanka. Yeah, yeah. So, you guys may have heard that Ivanka came out opposing her father's comments about the press being the enemy of people. And I know a lot of you guys are warming up to her. You know, it seems very humanizing for anyone from the Trump family to show any kind of

remorse or feelings. However, let's not forget, a year ago there was an article reported by Newsweek that talks about her involvement in this entire ordeal. So just to kind of bring it all up to speed, basically according to this article, Ivanka's diamonds from her jewelry line were embroiled in an alleged money laundering scheme. And people probably overlooked this news last year, just got over it because there was really no big thing going around money laundering at the time. It was just, it was announced, but there were no trials or anything. It just didn't seem like it would stick. But now

with Manifuck's trial in full swing, I feel like Ivanka could be coming up on the chopping block for this. So basically, according to a federal court filing in late June 2017, the commercial bank of Dubai sought and eventually got permission to subpoena Ivanka's fine jewelry line. And the bank claims that Ivanka's diamonds were accessories in the scheme, no pun intended, to hide about $100 million that was owed to the bank. So based on the filings at the US

of the District of New York, the plan was engineered by the Al Ceres family who owned a multi-billion dollar immorati oil empire before they ran into legal trouble for some unpaid bills. Which how do you own a multi-billion dollar company and you don't pay your bills, such as greedy. That's a Stonel Trump. Yeah, I'm poor, but I also feel like I don't pay bills when I can't pay them, but if I

had a lot of money, I would be like, when I get into money, I'm like, oh, let me pay everything. Like, this is great. I can do things. Bills are just suggestions for poor people. There you go. They're just so pretty. Also, how do you think they got rich? Exactly.

By the way, that was a quote, I was quoting Jeliza when she said laws are just suggestions. Totally. Last last week or two weeks ago. Yeah. I wanted you to know that I wasn't saying weird things. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The true fans know. New listeners age, you love her.

You love her. I know. I don't want them to think that I actually think that That's all I appreciate the disclaimer. Yeah, you never know So apparently the Al series family borrowed over $100 million Defaulted on that debt and then quote hit their assets and shell companies they use to buy diamonds Including some from Trump's jewelry line So even though the bank is not officially accused Trump's business of any wrongdoing, the timeline of the case

Just suggests that any potential transaction would have occurred when he won't go stril on with still in business And it would have been licensed under the corporate name of Madison Avenue diamonds Which just reminds me of the Nopoli game Madison Avenue and I feel like the Trump family plays monopoly the way the rest of us like play life It's just like it sounds like to me what you're what you're saying is that Ivanka treated her diamond company the way that Trump treats his real estate. Like it's just a way for Russians to launder money. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. And like father like daughter, I guess, totally, totally. And since all this came out, Ivanka has cut her connections with Madison Avenue diamonds and White House spokesman Josh Raffles who usually deals

with all things Ivanka, he didn't respond for this. But what we're learning about it is that money launders often convert dirty money into small diamonds that are easy to smuggle and cash internationally. Put them in your butt. Totally. Oh, yes, yes. Dude, do you just mention Josh Raffle? Do you remember him?

You know, his name kind of ring a bell, but I can't remember exactly from him. He's the one that resigned when Hope Hicks resigned. Oh. He was Trump's kid's handler. That's a babysitter guy. Remember the babysitter? Yeah, thank you for reminding me. There's the one that resigned when Hope Hicks resigned. Oh. He was Trump's kids handler. That's the babysitter guy. Remember the babysitter. Yeah, thank you for reminding me.

There's so many players in that guy was a, yeah, maybe cooperating. He's important. Interesting. We also smuggle. Go ahead. No, smuggle. I want to hear it. Do you smuggle diamonds in your butt?

It was just a question. You know, I wouldn't be personally suggested. I feel like, you know, me. Okay, if you're doing it illegally. No. Well, if you're smuggling it, probably illegal. I'm just thinking, I don't want to just worry. They make you want.

They make a butt like bedazzle kind of. They make these, well, they're loose diamonds. They make these little charges. They're a little plastic egg-shaped things. Okay. They put contraband into smuggled around. I'm assuming. Like the Russian doll with diamonds inside.

I'm assuming there's diamond things. They got everything these days. They got it all. Crazy. So basically, we also learned that Ivanka started her jewelry line 10 years ago with her then partner, Masha Lex, who had a stake in the business, as well as other Ivanka-type businesses.

And that was all until late 2016, when Lex became entangled in, quote, various lawsuits claiming extortion and other crimes with some involving her jewelry line. So yeah, Ivanka's got some shady history there. We know about her Nordstrom band clothing line and her accessories brand at Trump Tower. So we'll see where all this goes for her.

But what I thought was so funny out of all of this is like, I wonder what her jewelry line slogan was. And I feel like it should just be like, there's fine jewelry on both sides. That would be great. Diamonds up your butt. Diamonds there's fine jewelry on both sides. That would be great. Diamonds up your butt. Diamonds up your butt. I love it.

That might be better. Diamonds up the ass. Yeah. But that's the bedazzle your asshole. Bedazzle your asshole. Um, wow. Thank you. Of course.

Thank you. And it's interesting too when you think of Ivanka, like again, she came out this week and said, I don't think that I don't think press the enemy of people and I was thinking like, oh, I hope people don't believe this because this is obviously just a good, cut bad cop thing. And she's pulling. She is a piece of shit. Yeah, we're impressionable.

I think it's bleeding liberals often. You know, who are, I mean, in general, decent people, I don't want to limit it to political things, but just decent people are inclined to be like, oh, well, you did all that shitty stuff, but then you said something that was, I was needing that and they forget, like they forget all the shitty stuff.

I follow Joe Walsh on Twitter now. That's crazy. Because he's been super ignited. These are weird times right now. Yeah, it's like I'm weird. Yeah, politics makes strange bedfellows. No joke. Yes, I love all people.

As soon as I heard the news about her clothing line, her walking away from that too, I was like, oh, okay, clearly there's money laundering in that. That's the only reason. Got to be. Yeah, and those clothes were shitty. Super ugly. Not like the House of B.J. and Oster Jackets. No, no, better than Kanye's line too, so I guess.

I did pick up on your Kanye right there, by the way, when you said that. Thank you, thank you. All right, well, Jordan, what's Giuliani up to this week? Mr. Teeth, Dr. Teeth. Yeah, so. Back off. We can call this the Louvre the Truth Tour,

or also Giuliani is a fucking idiot. That's, I think, full title supply. So there are a few updates from Giuliani and his world. You know, I can't even say delusion. I just think it's mayhem in his brain. And he has zero ability to discern what he should say and when it's hilarious. It's bad, it's total bad, unless it's completely planned.

I don't know what the real reality is. It's badlomb. It's total badlomb. Unless it's completely planned. I don't know what the real reality is. Yeah, we should send him like a footfer is mouth. That would be fun. Detached foot. Like a rabbit's foot. But good luck. But for a shot of the fuck up. A detached foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer. Rest in peace, Mitch Edwards. Oh, sorry. We all run it all down. Three comics, like, we need a break, we need a emotional break. Yeah, come on. For Mitch Edwards. Yeah, we're fine.

All right, so first, Rudy on Monday, I'm not calling him by his first name, we're not homies, Giuliani says on Monday, that he not sure if collusion with Russia is even a crime. He says he says that in an interview and he wouldn't be wrong. Just a reminder, collusion is not a crime, but conspiring with a foreign entity to commit crimes against the United States is so conspiracy is a crime. Yeah, somebody said collusion is not a crime. It's like four crimes. That's funny. It's not really funny. Yeah. and Senator Coons went on TV and he did a little YouTube video. He's like, here's what is, and he opened up the thing. And he's like, conspiracy with a foreign entity of blah, blah, blah.

He gave the code, the United States code and everything. And he's like, so that, that's what it is. Yeah. Shut up. Yeah, the word collusion is a time saver. It's just easier than saying failure to register as a foreign agent is all of these things. So eating it anding after the fact. Totally.

Exactly. So, then in the same interview on Monday, he's asked about the Maniford trial and he says that Trump didn't have intimate business relationships with Maniford. Thus, he is not going to go down with Maniford. We'll see. I mean, he's not going to go down with Maniford because that's not how legal proceedings work, but I am really excited to see how this trial reveals things that the more prosecution team can then use against Trump. I think you might pardon him. I think when he tweeted about how Maniford's being treated like Alphonse, Capone,

not Al Capone, Alphonse Capone. I think that was a signal. I didn't even catch that. I mean, either. Who is Alphonse versus Al? It's the same guy. Oh, yeah, yeah, who would go by Al Fons Sorry, is that an uncle or something? Got severely mistreated right right Uncle Al Fons we all know uncle Al Fons Everybody knows uncle Al Fons like that's funny. No. Yeah. No. I thought that was a signal Yeah, good catch good catch. It's interesting. Yeah. Trump only partens the people that are evil

till they're bitter end, totally. So yeah, he says he doesn't know. He starts talking about Cohen in this interview. Largely, it's what he winds up talking about. Most of his interviews this week. He comments that he doesn't know if Trump's gonna pardon Cohen. At this point, it's not looking good

because Cohen is, again, not being a horrible person at the bitter end. It looks like he might be flipping on Trump. So, he also says that Mueller's team, they're unresponsive about Trump's lawyers' recommendations regarding an interview between Mueller and Trump in this interview. So it puts them on blast. This is just a week of blast, basically. There's no cohesion in any of his interviews.

Just flat backs up the back. Yeah, my reporting right now is going to be just a bunch of facts basically of the stupid stupid things, really, on he said, he says that Mueller should, this is great. This is a great quote, quote, unquote, stand up and be a man and further disclose potential conflicts of interest regarding his role in the investigation. You know what I like about that is he's telling Mueller to stand up and we all want Rudy to take his seat. It's like, come on man. Yeah.

Don't give someone the floor that's gonna totally bury you in here seriously. Then Julian, Juliannie, Giuliani, he says that one of these conflicts of interest would be quote, a personal dispute with the president of the United States before the investigation that really precluded me from it. That's bullshit because Trump interviewed Mueller for the job of FBI director. He wouldn't have done that if he was having a golf tee

fucking dispute with fees over his stupid club that cost $250,000 to be a member of the shit. Exactly, exactly. And that's what they're referencing is some shit with his golf club and fees. So that was his first semi meltdown. And then it gets way worse. Also on Monday, Giuliani on Monday walks back a previous statement that he says on an interview

and CNN earlier that day, that is pretty important. And it raises some huge red flags. And I would say this is akin to his meltdown when he says Trump reimbursed Cohen for payments. Like a big bombshell kind of. Oh yeah, it's bad. It's really bad. It corroborates some pretty intense stuff.

So, Giuliani, initially in an interview, says that there was a meeting that occurred on June 7th. And this meeting was to talk about the infamous meeting that happened June 9th with Besanat Skaya Kushner, DTJ and Manafort. So he says, first, that Trump did not know about this, which would imply that it didn't fact happen, right? Right. He says that the meeting, the people that were in attendance at this meeting on June 7th was Manifort, DTJ, Kushner, Gates, and another individual that he cannot remember.

The usual suspects. Yeah. Yeah. So what's pretty amazing about this, obviously, is that Gates was there and Gates can corroborate this because he is flipped and is cooperating. This is a really important piece of information also for context. June 7th, the day that this meeting supposedly happened, is the same night that Trump had a anti-hillary rally and bragged about releasing information that was damaging to Hillary Clinton.

Yeah. It's like on a big speech Monday. I think you're going to about finding out all the things Hillary's done. That was the same day. And you know what? This is lubing the truth. He knows that Cone was probably at one of those meetings or he says Gates was at one of those meetings. Prebis is a, I think the mole unlikely there. It's going to come out that there was a second meeting and he's just getting out ahead of it. It's just insane. For the fantasy and diamond league, we should have bonus points for getting the mole correct like if you're right about previous That's gonna be huge. Oh, yeah, yeah, I have to think about that But yeah, it's not I mean that's just that that has to be what it is

Why else would he drop that there was a second meeting on the day Trump promised dirt or you know a big speech? Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, we should send live moles to whoever guesses the mole Correct. Yeah, I think it's illegal to ship live Yeah, that's true. Especially out of California. That is true. Okay, so, but then, this is something that I... But wait, there's more.

But wait, there's so much more. This, this what I'm about to say is not being reported because it is about a discrepancy in reporting that I've noticed in doing this research. There are stories that are reporting that he said this pre-meeting happened two days before, which would make it July 7th, the night that he said that shared about Hillary. And then there's other reporting that's saying it happened three days before. So I don't know why there's that discrepancy. Yeah, because it could be small, accidental, or it could be very intentional and big cover-up, you know, you know. Yeah, I'm trying to think if they're trying to cover it up and he mispoke and

said the date that it actually did happen or something and he was like, oh wait something else that's really important actually happened when you wanted to change it to one day before. I know so it's not that they're trying to cover up his thing. Or maybe he forgot how time-wides work and that was when he was trying to cover up fucking idiots. But maybe there's another missing piece of something that's happened, I don't know, either way, I'm going back in time. It doesn't really on a forgetting time is linear, daily basis, I'm in more.

And how it hurts him. So anyway, I think more or less, like I said, if anyone has any insight into this, by the way, listeners as to why, you know, because usually news agencies are really good about going back and correcting their reporting, but I'm reading stories that came out that have been updated since they were published

and they're still reading different days. So text out us that more she wrote or send us an email and more she wrote it, or hello at hello at moreshewroad.com. Yeah, okay, so, so that whole thing happens, right? He says that this pre-meeting happened and Trump was not there. Then CNN asks how he could be sure that Trump didn't know about this meeting beforehand. And he said quote unquote, nobody can be sure of anything.

Real confident, Joey, from a lawyer's team. He's gonna get the most shit-yell-per-views once this thing is done. Totally. Like, went for some legal advice Got taken down for international grabs one star Such an idiot help instead of you What was the meme that was going around like I went to Giuliani about a traffic ticket and he pleaded me down to murder in the first Yeah, that's so fun star. That's amazing. Yeah, exactly Okay, so that whole thing happens. Then on the same day, Giuliani

starts walking back what he just said. Oh, he says, I did not say that that meeting for sure happened. I was just telling you what I had heard Cohen had told reporters. He calls into Fox News and says, I am telling you, the meeting did not take place. It never happened. What? On the same day, again, said Cohen leaked that the meeting happened before the meeting, says he was only repeating this reporting and that the meeting absolutely never happened. But he didn't say that the first time.

No. He didn't. And obviously we can only assume this is because as soon as he gets off air, he realizes what he just corroborated. Yeah, yeah. That's horrible. Shitty, shitty lawyer. Of a situation this is, horrible counsel.

Then, in that same interview, he also says that Cohen has said that he was in the office with Trump when Donald Trump Jr. came in and told him about the Russia meeting. So they're all over the place. Yes, yeah, yeah. And says that that's a total lie. Obviously, he says that. Then he also answers a question that nobody asks was Trump at that meeting that you're saying didn't happen.

He says Trump absolutely wasn't there at that meeting. And then the Fox anchors are even so confused and disheveled by this mayhem. They're like, they, one guy literally asked like, why are you even giving us this? Nobody asked this. And he's like, by, and the Fox, I have to give this guy credit, he says by you even saying that he wasn't there is giving credence to the fact that the meeting did happen. That you're trying to say did not happen. And I think he said, wasn't physically there. And that's kind of when everybody was like,

was he there by conference call? Because Trump likes to listen into meetings on conference call phone, things like, yeah, like a weirdo. Yeah. So that is a really funny interview that I'm bringing to put in our newsletter, I think, because the Fox hosts are trying so hard to give him bones,

but he's trying. I can't wait until the movie comes out. I think because the Fox hosts are trying so hard to give him bones, but yeah, they're trying man I can't wait until the movie comes out every time they're looking like we didn't ask you that bro They come on I feel like this will be the comedic scenes in the movie where it's like they recreate the Rudy Giuliani Interviews in the Mueller movie and it's just gonna be like it's pure comedy. It's like I feel bad But also it's hilarious. You don't have to recreate them. Just play a close close. Just play the real thing. I'm the actor's actor around it like, oh, yeah. The documentary will be funny too. Yeah. Yeah.

So, yeah, for Quick Recap in the same day, Giuliani comes out, reveals that it is possible or that there's an existence of a meeting that happened before the June 9th meeting. And then he walks it back and says that simultaneously says a that meaning never happened and B. Trump also wasn't there at the meeting that didn't happen. This is crazy. Or at the meeting that did happen, but it didn't happen. Exactly. Yeah, wait, what am I?

Where am I? Where am I? Which meeting? Yeah. None of them happened. He wasn't there. What year is it? Exactly, exactly. What is my name?

Yep. And so that wraps up that debauchery, just a final update for Giuliani. Thursday, this is unrelated to what I should say. Thursday, on August 2nd, ABC reports that Mueller's office wants to ask Trump questions relating to obstructions of justice. He's proposing both oral and written questions,

and it's been reported that Trump is aware of this intention and it would make sense because he had a tweet storm on Wednesday, and this would line up perfectly with that. Getting word that he is probably going to need to go in for questioning. Yeah, but he flipped out, which means that makes me think he was told that if he doesn't do this voluntarily, he can be subpoenaed. And that's what I think that was floated. I don't understand. Because I mean, what would have made him so nuts? He already knows Mueller wants to sit down

and talk about obstruction. Right, something new has it. I feel like there was something heavier in there. Yeah. Or it's just a trigger for him just reminding that he's actually probably definitely going to wind up being a target of the investigation. He doesn't really want to sit down probably.

It could be something as stupid as it's now. He's mad because it's going to wind up being a target of this investigation. It doesn't really want to say down, probably. It could be something as stupid as it's now he's mad because it's gonna make us take two swings off his golf game this weekend. Like, it could be something that stupid. Like, remember when he's upset he couldn't go to his party or he was gonna be late to his party because of something that you remember? I can't remember. Yeah, just really trivial. I think my party because of something.

They give me diet Pepsi and said Diet Coke. He's just tweeting about Twitter. Tweeting about Twitter. I would have a fit about that though. Really? If you brought me Diet Pepsi instead of Diet Coke. I go either way. Yeah, that's a bunch of about that.

I'd still tip you about there'd be problems. And then, sorry, I just have to step here. So Giuliani then submitted a response to Mueller asking to limit the scope of an interview with Trump, especially as it relates to obstruction of justice. So of course, he pushes back asking them to ask less questions, if any at all. I imagine his throat's in the cold.

For you guys to sit down and just not talk to each other. Is that possible staring contest, Thumbwore, on wrestling? Can we do that? Or like one of those, you know, the memes where they have the children, like activities, like in school, like their assignments and they'll write in the little children's responses,

like we should make a meme where Trump writes his responses to Trump's, maybe just like doodles probably. But it probably already has. Oh, yeah, there you go. Yeah, thank you, Jordan. Yeah, oh, yeah, sorry. And last thing, Giuliani reported that they did get a response back from Mueller's office

and there should be a decision within the 10 days. Yep. Yep, 10 days. Oh, and I just wanted to mention Cohen might be flipping. That's conjecture. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Condition. This is, we don't, I mean, there's opinion pieces on it

and stuff like that, but there's no hard facts that he's doing that. Right, right. Yeah, he definitely is not kissing his ass anymore though. That's pretty. For sure. Yeah, and we had a, I have an added clear up their relationship in that phone call

too, so we've got that on the record. All right. I'm gonna give you guys an update on Bhutina because a lot of shit went down with her this week And you're this is gonna blow your mind it blew my mind First off Betsy Woodruff of the Daily Beast wrote a story that Bhutina got Hank Greenberg CEO former CEO of AIG That's one of the bailout companies from the Obama years She got him to prop up a Russian bank by investing eight million dollars in it

She got him to prop up a Russian bank by investing $8 million in it. And in April of 2015, Bhutina and Torshin attended a private meeting at the center for the national interest. That's a think tank. And most think tanks are hawkish on Russia, but this one isn't. They want to improve relations with Russia. So Torshin and Bhutina attended a private discussion at the center for the national interest to discuss Russia's financial situation. and Greenberg was there at that. The Center for National Interest is known for facilitating conversations between the Kremlin and American foreign policy leaders,

as I was saying. The honorary chairman of the center is Henry Kissinger, by the way. One of Putin's closest buddies, and the guy who advised Trump to pal around with Russia. So that's interesting, right, Kissinger? Richard Burt is also a member of the center. I'm just going to call the center from now on. Richard Burt is a member. And he's a lobbyist for Gazprom. John Huntsman, Trumms Ambassador to Russia, served on the board for the center. And David Keen is also a board member, former president of the NRA. Oh wait, I'm sorry, really quick. John Huntsman, the presidential candidate. I don't, did he run for president?

I know he's Trump's ambassador to Russia. Interesting. He can't be, it must be a different person. Oh man, that'd be crazy. Could be, I don't know, these guys, I don't follow their, there's a each time when we had like 18 Republicans running for, yeah, John Huntsman, Jr. Yeah, I don't know if they're related.

Can't believe he remembers one of them too, there's, yeah. No, it's him. It's him, it is. Yeah, okay, there you go. Wow,. I can't believe he remembers one of them, too. Yeah, no, it's him. It's him. It is. Yeah, okay, there you go. Wow. So, we're a former presidential candidate, and now I'm bastard at Russia. He was on the board at the Center for National Interest.

Holy, that's weird. And then David Keen, like I said, NRA, former NRA president. Here's where I blow your mind. The Center for National Interest hosted the Mayflower event. That's where all the Marshall Plan guys met. Oh. And Sessions talked to Kisleyak, which is why he recused himself. So connect those dots if you can, okay?

Flynn's buddy Copson giving $10 million to Cohen to secure funding for reactors in the Middle East and are reporting that Bhutina lobbied for KT McFarlane to be Flynn's number two, and Flynn meeting with Kisleyak about sanctions and lying to the FBI about it, and Bhutina being part of the group that hosted the Mayflower meeting. So now we have Cohen, Bhutina, Sessions, Cops, and Flynn, the Mayflower Marshall Plan meeting, and the NRA all tied together. And Bhutina is the crook. She's the fulcrum of all of this. But Bhutina trying to get Greenberg to continue investing in a failed Russian bank isn't the only weird financial stuff she took part in.

Tuesday, BuzzFeed reported she had a $90,000 transaction with alpha bank. That's the bank mentioned in the Fusion GPS testimony, the steel dossier and the one whose servers were communicating with Trump Tower from early in 2015. That's also connected to Eric Prince because I think his sister works for a company that was dealing

with the wire transfers for the Yeezes. Some medical company or something. No wonder she's so underqualified for education. She's great with wire transfers. It's not the wrong business. She's worked for the Western Union. And another story came out this week that Bhutina would get drunk and brag to her classmates

at American University that she was the connection between Trump's campaign and Russia. Yes, the lady pop a dot, right? Right. The lady pop a dot. And her classmates told the FBI and they're like, fuck. Yeah, yeah. I would have just quietly raised my hand like,

I don't know. It's an awkward moment in class, when. Yeah, yeah. That's hilarious. So if you don't think that's enough, dots, let me add a wrinkle here. A story dropped this week that Bettina was paling around with JD Gordon, who served for six months as the director of national security for Trump's campaign. The two exchanged

several emails in the weeks before the election. He invited her to a sticks concert, Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto, and he invited her to his birthday party in October. Yeah, we're going to skateland. And she had invited him to a group dinner at the Army and Navy club hosted by George O'Neill Jr. heir to the Rockefeller fortune and person two in the Bhutina indictment we found out he's person two. Gordon served as the head of national security group for Trump's transition, which included page and pop-a-dopolis. That's the group in the famous Instagram photo with Sessions and Trump, where pop-a-dops like, I'm going to Moscow. Yeah. It's like, no, and Trump's like, okay.

And that all, that shit happened. And that's JD Gordon. And remember, it was Gordon that was the point person for pushing the Ukraine policy platform change at the RNC along with Dearborn, who was connected by Bhutina's pretend boyfriend, Paul Erickson, about setting up a Kremlin connection. She is the middle point of all of this. It is insane the amount of connections that between her Flynn, Marshall Plan,

sessions, Kisley Akko, Cohen. And if she slipped right through the cracks, because I think appearances, she's a very adorable looking person. I don't think she slipped through the cracks. They've been investigating her for a long time. Okay, okay. Now, some more Boutina news.

I mean, that's a good point. She went under our radar. At, some more Boutina news. I mean, that's a good point. Right. When under our radar, at least for the optics for the public. The FBI didn't pounce on her until they found out she was going to leave. So that was all quiet hush hush. Underrap. Yeah.

And that's why we didn't know. Okay. Now, some more Boutina news, a report from David Korn. He's him and Issa Koff wrote Russian roulette. He did a story in Mother Jones this week saying Boutina may have been the cause of a leadership shake up at the NRA. So the NRA has a very specific way of getting a new president, okay?

You have to serve two annual terms, that's two years as second vice president, then two annual terms, two years as vice president, then you get to be president for two years, two terms, one year a piece. But in May, all over North was named president and he had never served in any of those positions. And not only that, but the outgoing president, Brownell, only

served one of his two years. It was a weird move. But what wasn't known at the time was that two weeks prior to him exiting on April 25th, the FBI rated Bhutina's apartment. So did the raid lead to Brownell's quick retreat? That's the question that David Corners asking. He had a history with Butina. He was at the Moscow dinner with David Clark, the sheriff with the flare and Joe Gregory. During that trip, Butina also introduced Brownell to Svetlana Nicolayva. She's the president of a Russian weapons company and the wife of Constantine Nicolayoff. That's the guy who funded Bhutina.

So the one from the pictures of them on Twitter, I'll like shooting guns and stuff. Mm-hmm. Yeah, the trip to Moscow, the NRA took, and they paid for. Keen was also on that trip, and as a former NRA president, he's one of the guys on the board

of the Center for National Interest that hosted the Mayflower meeting that I referenced earlier. He was on that trip. And finally, in a story by Tim Dickinson on Rolling Stone, it's reported, this is so good that the NRA is in deep financial trouble according to a new legal filing by the gun group against the state of New York, the whole state. So the NRA is suing New York, the state of New York, for alleged state-sponsored blacklisting

campaigns. They've lost their insurance coverage. They say they're in deep financial trouble and may not be able to quote, able to exist any longer due to quote, irrecoverable loss and irreparable harm. So they suck and they're blaming the state of New York and you're suing them because nobody wants to do business with them anymore because I swear to God, those Parkland kids had a lot to do with this. That's incredible. Hell yeah.

Hell yeah. Is this the beginning of the end of the NRA? I know. It feels like that this week. Either that or there just be a bit of whining victims. Yeah, or like how both. I like how people can't get medical insurance if they have like pre-existing,

yeah, they like to do some research. But they're like, yeah, exactly. Yeah, we're we're based on firearms. What? Dude, they're so pro-death. Yeah, and they aren't able. They're complaining. They aren't able, they're complaining, they're aren't able to continue. They're not, not for profit, you

know, good work in the United States, etc. Because the New York is black, listing them. Cuomo has said that the lawsuit, he hears what he says about the lawsuit, it's quote, a few tile and desperate attempt to advance its dangerous agenda to some more guns. So guys, those are the hot notes. Beans as fuckuck, we'll be right back. Thanks for listening to Muller She Wrote. The She in Muller She Wrote is no accident.

Did you know we are 100% women owned and operated? Every single person that helps make this podcast possible identifies as a woman. Our creative and web design, our engineer and producers, our editors and digital media manager, our agent, our ad execs, our merchandising manager and even the postal service clerk that helps me with shipping in our PO box. All women and all LGBTQ plus allies. We will continue to employ and partner with women as our podcast grows, but we could

use your help. Please support women in podcasting by visiting mullersheewrote.com and become a patron today. Alright, you guys ready for the fantasy indictment, League? Yeah! Excellent. This week, you guys, we had no indictments, so no one gets any points. I will put up a new official post Sunday night, which is last night, if you're listening to this. Yeah, yeah.

It's just time is linear. Anyway, it'll be up there. It'll be a pin post on the Friends of Justice page. If you are not a patron, you won't be able to access the Friends of Justice page. If you want to play the fantasy indictment league, you can sign up as a patron for as little as a dollar a month. You get so much, you get a newsletter weekly newsletter,

you get my personal show research notes, you get access to the MSW book club when we come back with that. Oh yeah, a lot of goodies. You get every single bonus episode we've ever done, there's like I think 40 of them, or 30 or 40 bonus episodes. That you've been working on that probably too. Yeah.

We have 71 total episodes, so 71 minus 39 is whatever. Oh, there you go, Yeah, ma'am. That's something on 34, 31, 31. Uh, something. I don't know, maybe, two, 32. Lots, lots. Lots, lots. You get access to all of them.

And what else do you get? Oh, we have free gifts. If you sign up at different levels. Yeah, it's heat shirts, stickers. Sexy Justice calendar. Oh, my goodness. Sexy Justice calendar is worth it. You still got 11 months in that calendar.

I'd love that. 10, yeah, yeah. So hard. Anyway, so my fantasy indictment calendar, or 12 to 10. Yeah, yeah. So hard. Yeah. Anyway, so my fantasy indictment picks, I don't think based on any of the news that we've heard this week that my picks are changing.

So they'll be up in the post. It's still Stone, Assange, Arando, and who else did I have Cohen and Donald Trump, Jr. Yeah, I stand by mine too. It was interesting. I just, I don't know, I figured the people that we mentioned today, like all of them have been brought up, right? Like the ones that the major players, like the meetings we just discussed, I feel like we never missed any of the big fish. So I feel like it's still the same.

Well, the only thing that could change is Bhutina could get additional indictments. Oh, I see. It's super seating indictments count. Yeah, yeah, okay. Yeah, so I think we covered everybody there. Yeah, but she's a Russian. She's only worth one or two points. I can't remember, the whole new point structure is up. It's gonna be on the post

I'm always gonna be like a thousand points. I mean, all you win automatically. Yeah, yeah, but the meatballs But that's not for the mold being indicted. That's for calling the mole curfew Exactly. Yeah, yeah, as we all know, I think it's pretty best. That's a good one. Yeah. Yeah I'm gonna do a stone a song D.H.J. Kushner I think those are my same from last week and my fifth one though I'm gonna say that random guy, Giuliani, couldn't remember. That was at June 7th, slash June 6th.

Maybe it was Goldstone. And she was thinking, you're gonna need it. Yeah, I like that. I love Jessie Egan. That was amazing, yeah, yeah. All right guys, you ready for sabotage? Oh yeah. Yeah. This week some really interesting news came out toward the end of the week about Russian

spies. And I had a conversation with a wonderful person, Asha Rengapa, heart you Asha. She's the one who coined the term Snoop Dag. For Rosenstein, which is my favorite thing. She's funny and brilliant. Here, let's take a listen to that. The Guardian dropped a big story this week about a Russian spy that has apparently been working or had apparently been working at the heart of US intelligence inside the US Embassy in Moscow for a decade.

With us today to talk about the implications is former FBI special agent, CNN contributor and friend of the pod, Asha Rangapa, Asha, welcome to Molar Shiro. Thanks for having me. Yeah, no, thanks for coming back. We love having you. So what about this Russian spy and the embassy?

What is going on? Well, our embassies hire foreign service nationals to do some of their support work. I think that's fairly common, you know, because we have pretty large embassies. So there's, you know, always locals, I guess, working there. I would imagine, and I just saw Jonathan Wackro on CNN. He's a former Secret Service Asian confirmed that she would have had access to a very limited amount and kind of information that would be known as sensitive but unclassified.

So she wouldn't have had access to classified information. I'm saying she, am I mistaken? It was a woman, right? Yeah, I think the article in the Guardian said it was a woman. I think, yeah, that's what I recalled. My understanding from the article and what Jonathan Wackro said about her role is that she was performing a liaison role between the embassy and the local FSB law enforcement. And that is apparently a job there.

So I don't know that it was her stealing information and giving it to them. I think that the larger threat here is that you have someone on the inside who, if the host country intelligence services using them, has the opportunity to be their eyes and ears inside the embassy for a number of things that could be useful to them in the long term. So the immediate thing that came to mind for me is that she can spot and assess other employees who may have greater access.

That's what I was thinking. Like maybe she could be either looking for weak links or recruiting or something like that. Exactly. I mean, you know, these intelligence agencies, and I can't our intelligence in the United States. So your holy grail is to always recruit someone who's inside, you know, someone who works for the other country inside the embassy because then they can, you know, provide you with information. And to do that, you need to know who are the people

who have the kind of access that you want, what are their vulnerabilities? Is there somebody there who is really disgruntled and not happy about their job, for example, is there somebody who's complaining about money all the time? I mean, things that can really give a sense of where can we, for the FSB, where can we put our resources, who might we be able to cultivate and potentially recruit? Oh, yeah, I work for the government and we are also trained to look for the signs of,

people who are divorced or always complaining about money or looking for those weak links. So, I mean, if I'm trained to spot them, she had to be. Yes, I agree. That's just nuts to me. I wonder if any fruit came of her labor. I don't know. Yeah, it's kind of strange that this story is coming out now. That's the thing that I thought was interesting about it. I feel like the IC is like they're pretty upset. Maybe they're starting to leak these stories. We got to get a hold of this before it gets out of control.

So to briefly switch topics, and this is kind of a sharp left turn, you and I are of the same opinion, and I'm shifting over to the Cohen case now. And I had spoken last week and last week's episode about Mueller handing off the Cohen case. And initially we thought it was because it had to do with playboy playmates and payoffs and it just wasn't really in his wheelhouse. But when they subpoenaed Weiselberg, it occurred to me that that might have been the end game all, you know, the whole time and all along. And but now. Weiselberg being the finance officer for Trump. Exactly.

Like, probably the one guy who is the most dangerous outside of Trump's brother to subpoena. But now, you know, by handing that whole all off, the Weiselberg subpoena, it kind of keeps the Mueller investigation like bulletproof and outside of that red line, you know, that Trump didn't want them to cross about going into his finances. And I was wondering what you thought about that. If that is that something that could have been, you know, that Trump didn't want them to cross about going into his finances. And I was wondering what you thought about that. In fact, is that something that could have been, you know, thought of ahead of time? Or anticipated? Well, yeah, I mean, and this is what I just tweeted as well.

Look, when Mueller is doing his investigation, he has an obligation to make sure any evidence of criminal activity is investigated, you know, whether it relates to his mandate or not. So, for example, if he comes across computer that has child pornography, he can't just ignore it and say, oh, you know, I'm only here to look at Russian interference and just pretend that it doesn't exist. Now, he is limited because he's a special counsel by his mandate. So, if he does come across evidence of criminal activity that's going to kind of lead down

a whole path that starts to have a more tenuous connection to his core mandate of investigating links of any coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia and any crimes arising out of that, I think that it makes sense that he would pass it off to another office, and partly for resource reasons, and also partly to keep his investigation kind of contained. So we know that the Cohen investigation appears to center around bank fraud, things regarding taxes and taxing medallions. I mean, you can see how he might have passed it up. But I also think that you've also uncovered things that start to go down a rabbit hole of the Trump organization

and going back years and years before he maybe even entertained, you know, running for president. That can present problems for Mueller in terms of he doesn't know how big that's going to be and does he have the resources to do it. And also he's already under fire for kind of expanding his scope and going too far. So he can by pushing the the Cohen stuff to another office leave that whole path for another office to follow. Right. And any Russia evidence obviously would go back to him. Right.

But, yeah, no, they would still be communicating, you know, exactly. If this other industry comes across evidence as relevant to the Russia investigation, there's obviously an open investigation on that. They would pass that information on, but they can then pursue these other avenues. Yeah. Another mindset from a long time ago, for example. Right, and now the evidence that any evidence that comes back to him is squeaky clean. His hands are clean.

I call it evidence laundering. Because that's kind of what it seems like to me. Like, I'm going to hand this whole shabang off to you. You guys have the resources. We only have 17 angry Democrats here. It used to be 13, but now it's 17. All of them are angry Democrats. Harden, excuse me, hardened Democrats.

But yeah, I'm gonna hand all this off to you. Y'all come back to me with any Russia evidence if you have it, and then I will have not gone out of my scope, even though I can't really go out of my scope, because it says I can investigate anything that arises out of this Ken Star? Thank you. But now it's like super hands clean and it gives them less firepower. Right.

And I think you can't fault the Southern District of New York or FBI, General FBI DOJ, they don't have these kinds of jurisdictional limitations on what they're allowed to investigate. All right. They can investigate any violation of the criminal code. You know, and this is how, for example, remember that with Anthony Weiner, you know, they had that investigation. They came across Hillary evidence.

They reopened the case. They will follow evidence and spin it off into other cases if they need to, and they're not restricted in the same way that Mueller is. It makes me laugh that you call him Weiner. I used to do that as a- Oh, is it Weiner? I'm pretty sure it's Weiner, but I used to do that in hotel restaurant management.

If somebody's last name was Weiner, I called the Mr. Weiner or Mrs. Weiner and allowed them to correct me just so that, you know, if it wasn't Weiner, we would be okay. Finally, I just wanted to get a quick reaction about Giuliani this week. He's on a tear talking about Trump's obstruction, that obstruction only happens at night

in the dark behind closed doors. And also, I think he said something along the lines of, well, first of all, collusions, not a crime. Everyone's talking about how he's pivoting. He actually did this before. Several months ago, the White House started with the collusions, not a crime situation. And I was just wondering, what is Giuliani doing?

Like, what is his goal here? Is he an idiot? I have no idea what he's doing. Speaking of turn or... I mean, he's not helping his client. I can tell you that. Or is he volunteering information? Like, you know, there was a meeting before the Trump tower.

I mean, stuff that hasn't been out there, maybe Mueller knows it already, but why would you put that out there? Why would you implicate or even suggest that there is anything additional beyond what is already publicly out there? I think there was some story that he was trying to get ahead of something. That he thought was going to leak. And I don't know how that could, whatever was going to come out, was going to be worse than what he did. Well, that. And I don't know how that could, whatever was gonna come out was gonna be worse

than what he did. Well, that's what I think, gosh, I call it the Loob the Truth Tour, where he comes out and sort of leaks the truth out a little bit at a time. So when the big truth hits, his base takes it a little easier. So I call it, we call it Loobing the Truth,

but because I think that if he's got it in his head that this whole thing is going to end in impeachment, not in indictment of the president because they don't think Mueller is going to go that route because of the DOJ policies, etc., etc. But there will be a report to Congress or through Rosenstein or maybe Benchkowski, I don't know. But eventually we'll end up in impeachment. And the court of public opinion is the only option they have. And so maybe they're trying to get it out there. Like, Russia's great.

We colluded with it. Russia helped us beat Hillary. Everything's fine. Yeah, I banged Playboy Playmates. It's not awesome. High five. And like, just trying to get all that out there so that when it all comes out at impeachment, his base is like, who gives a crap and don't impeach him.

Do you know what I mean? Yeah. I'm sorry, what's your question exactly? Oh, I mean, I think I'm just kind of chatting with you now. Like, I, that's... Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I mean, look, I understand that he's doing the Court of Public Opinion versus the Court of Law because he thinks that the Court of Law isn't relevant, but it is relevant in the sense that if the president were ever to be impeached, he could

still be criminally liable for any kind of criminal acts. The wisdom that the president can't be indicted while sitting in office is about the charging mechanism. It doesn't mean that he's immune forever from ever being held responsible for the crime. So even if that public relations tour, whatever he thinks he's doing, is his goal, you still have to be careful about making sure that you're not implicating your client or providing additional evidence

that could expose them to criminal liability. So I don't know that that is a great excuse for the kind of things that he is saying. Yeah, very true. I mean, unless he's expecting a pardon from whoever takes over. Yeah, I don't know. You got me. But anyway, Asha, Rangapa, former FBI Special Agency and end contributor, thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you. It's been really great to talk to you. We'll see you soon. Okay, take care. All right, bye-bye. Bye. All right, you guys ready to flip it blue? Yeah All right, you guys today I got to have a wonderful conversation with an old friend He's running for San Diego City Council. You'll hear all that in the interview. Let's take a listen.

Today, I'd like to welcome to Muller Shee wrote a long time friend of mine. He's running for San Diego City Council in District six. I've met him way back in the day when he was on the air on 91X and was doing a environmental campaigning and very into the environment and making sure that we all kind of understood and were aware, it was very early on,

I do remember that, but please welcome to Moller Sheer out Tommy Howe, how are you doing? I am doing well, thank you for having me here today and you know, it was FM 949. Oh, that's right, it was about the music, you're right. I've already had it. It was 949 that back then. Yeah, and I was doing my Tree Huggers International Show

back then. Yes, that he thought of, I think we were in a mobile home, weren't we? I think you're running. It felt like I was on pirate radio. The audience was great. That was fantastic. So first of all, can you tell us a little bit

about your district and why you're running who you're running against? Sure, sure. So I'm running in San Diego City Council District 6, and that's a fancy way of saying that's Claremont, Miramasa, Kernemasa, Miramar, Sereno Valley, and the southern portion of Rancho Pentecostas, which is basically Park Village and Canyon View. Well, now, how does our, we've had our guest, Dallas McLaughlin, on here.

He coined the phrase, put some beans on it for us. And that's our put a pin in it, you know, put some beans on it. Now, how does he feel about this? Because he isn't he the mayor of Claremont? Dallas is, he, I think he was the mayor of Claremont at one time. I'm not so sure if that title follows you to Riverside County or not, but he's the honorary. He's the honorary, yeah. Claremont. The honorable former mayor of Claremont. Important to note Claremont does not have a mayor. Yes, very much so. It's just Dallas, so.

It is a large community within the city of San Diego and the eastern two-thirds of Claremont are in district six. So basically if you're east of Claremont Drive, you're in the district that I'm running in. Make sense, okay. It's an unusual district in that it's very decentralized. If you look at it on a map, Miramar is sort of the center of it, the whole Marine Corps

air station, Miramar, which is a lot of open space. And then Claremont, sort of on the southwest side of that, Mir Maces to the North, Serena Valley to the North, Kerney Maces off to the east, and then PQs off to the far northeast. And so a lot of the neighborhoods don't always have a lot of labor with each other. Like you may have here in Midtown, where sort of Kensington runs into normal heights and that runs into university heights in Hillcrest. These are all post-Wold War II areas that were developed

at different times. Claremont was the first back in the 50s. Miramasa was built more in the 1970s and then those areas of PQ were really built in the 1980s and 90s. So you have a very different age of infrastructure in there, a real wide variety of age groups. It's a very, very diverse district. It is arguably the most diverse district in the city of San Diego.

And it's, if I'm not mistaken, the second biggest as far as land area goes. So it's really an enormous district and there's a lot of different areas to cover. But it's one that I have felt over time has been a little bit ignored, has been neglected. Kind of neglected, bypassed on city services. And the gentleman who is the current council member for it is best known for basically undoing the entire role of a public official by taking classified city information

about the soccer city proposal given to him in confidence by the city attorney so he can do his job for the taxpayers and the residents and his neighbors and instead used his own personal email address to send that information on soccer city to the soccer city developer to give them a leg up in negotiations with the city. That cannot be legal. It is not legal. It's actually a misdemeanor. And Mr. Kate actually admitted to that.

And so that's your opponent. Our current city council member, Destrick six, is Mr. Kate. That's correct. Chris Kate, yes. He was elected back in 2014. I was under investigation by the state attorney general for about seven or eight months. He's paid about $6,000 to the city's ethics commission. And $6,000 may not be a lot of money for Mr. Kate.

No. That's a lot of money for me. It is. It's a lot of money for my neighbors. And that's another one of the reasons that I'm running is if someone, if you had done this during the course of your job, you would have been fired with cause. Yeah, I'm surprised he's running again. That's astounding to me.

And is it just the two of you in this race? That's right, yeah. So there were a number of other candidates also running against Mr. Kate in the primary. I came in second and under measures K and L, which were passed by San Diego voters in 2016. Top two finishers now go to November. So we're gonna be challenging Mr. Kate.

So you're top two finisher. Congratulations. Thank you. I'm happy that you're running against this guy and I would be very surprised if he won again. Well, he's sitting on quite a lot of money but he's not particularly well liked around the district and we know because we've gone and we've,

I'm sorry about the sound effect there. We've knocked on that Shoe of Thundermore. That's better. There you go. Knocked on a lot of doors. Thousands of doors throughout the district. We started walking before the Super Bowl. And not once have we come across someone who's like, oh, yeah, yeah.

Well, that's important because every single person we've had on the show has said that this is groundwork, it's grassroots, and that is how you have to get it done. That's the only way you can get it done. If you are in a situation where we are, you're going to be grassroots because you're actually talking to your neighbors. That's where the impetus to run comes from. Is from a grassroots understanding of the issues and awareness of what's happening. So frankly, you could just run on the fact that you're running against a criminal, but

I assume because you are who you are and you're awesome that you do have a platform and some things that you stand for. Do you want to tell us a little bit about what is important to your district? Thank you, Allison. You're right. Look, if you're running against an incumbent, it's one thing to say, you've got to fire this guy and hire me. It's a more important thing to offer a vision of what this district and the policies that

you see as important and your neighbor's see as important and how you want to go and implement those. The first thing, and it's almost a gimme, really for anyone running for office, you got to talk about infrastructure and roads. Nothing's a gimme in this election, by the way. Well, you're well to clarify that, you're right. You know what I'm saying? But roads are cool.

And San Diego's put about $800 worth of wear and tear on their car every single year is because the roads are so bad right now. We have a lot of road problems. We have a lot of road problems. We have a lot of road problems. Mr. Kate ran his entire campaign for the primary by mail and bragged about the amount of potholes he's filled.

And I'm like, the problem ain't the potholes. We're gonna have rain again next year. Eventually we'll rain again here and we will have potholes once again at the exact same place where he had patched them before. We need to rebuild problem roads from the ground up, roads that are major arterials that everyone winds up using. And it's nice if you go and you pay if someone's road or your resurface that

are asphalted or put slurry seal on it on a cul-de-sac. And I'm sure the residents there are happy to have that. But let's focus on the roads that everyone uses. That's critical. And that should be your job when you're a council member. And that's part of the leadership failures that Mr. Kate continues to think no one's gonna notice. Knowing you also, I'm assuming that the way

that you would be addressing these issues are going to be completely in line with your environmental views. I know you're a very strong proponent of the environment if you wanna go into that at all. Yeah, very much so. And in District 6, it's easy to sort of bypass the environmental impact that district six can receive from poor environmental awareness. You know, I was

endorsed by the Sierra Club. I was one of the co-founders of San Diego County Democrats for Environmental Action. I was the original president of that organization for over three years. And in district six, we may not have beaches, but we've got canyons. We've got canyons in Rancho Peneesquitos. We've got an incredible canyon system in Claremont. And in Miramesa, we have one of the largest, I wouldn't say preserved, it's not wilderness, but certainly made designed as Parkland,

Los Peneesquitos Canyon that we have anywhere in the region. That's a county park. But these are real, real assets that we have here in the district. And if we have toxins, if we have the sort of materials that people put on their lawns continuing to assault our canyons, where does that go? That goes out in our bays, that goes out to the beach, that goes into the sea. There's a cumulative effect from that. So if we're able to go and just keep our canyons clean and make sure that we've got native

species growing in there, they were getting rid of the invasive species. The invasive, yeah. Which, why do they have increasing fire risks as well? They absolutely do. That's critical. Yeah, and you bring up a really good point even if you don't have beaches in your district, every district affects the beaches. Very much so.

And that's the runoff, and any toxic, or, you know, it's hugely important. Claremont is literally built in the canyon country where you go from the canyon area down to the coastal zone. You know, that has a highly unusual hydrology there, and that affects the roads, by the way, because some of the road beds there are 60 odd years old. Yeah, that makes sense. So they're gonna need to be replaced

by virtue of all the water they have running around there. All right, so before I let you go, I wanted you to touch on a little bit about something we spoke about before this interview, and that's, how is the city council election important to our nation, the grander political body. Well, it's important in one way, and that is, I was a big fan of President Obama,

might have been the best president in my lifetime, I was a big fan of Jimmy Carter as well, but during President Obama's eight years in office, the Democrats did blues control of a lot of state legislatures, a lot of mayors and a lot of cities, a lot of school boards. A lot lot of cities, a lot of school boards, a lot of governorships, a lot of governorships. These are critical elections. Redistricting is very, and that is right under the does knows. And that's been a plan, I mean, they've been

planning, they've been working on this for 30 years. They've been working on it for 30 years, and for a while Democrats benefited from not making a big bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of We have a strong mayor system and the council can make sure the mayor has to come to the people on council. God, it'd be so nice to be able to just get shit done. Exactly. And there's all this policy that we talk about that's in the ether. Yeah. And we have an opportunity to actually make real strides on our housing crisis and our homeless crisis, making sure we have enough fire stations, ensuring that we have energy choice and that community choice energy comes to pass. It's already part of the climate action plan.

That's big. I would love to have a storage battery in my house, but they won't let me. I can't go off the grid. SDG and E is a monopoly, and monopolies do not give themselves up without a fight. No, I wouldn't imagine that they would. They're also a danger to us because of fires, and then they try to charge us for when that happens. Right. It's pretty insane.

And you want a monopoly, you wouldn't be able to get away with that. Correct. That is very critical. Like you said, it kind of rolls up. We do have to, I remember when Bernie Sanders was running, and I know a lot of my listeners are not Bernie fans, but the message was on point that we have to do this ourselves. We have to get in at the ground level, start with the school board, start with the city councils, and then we work our way up to the mayorships, and the governorships, and the Congress, and the Senate, and we have to start at the bottom.

And the bottom is the wrong, but you know, we have to start small, think locally. Yeah, and that farm team is critical to cultivate that. And Bernie actually did a remarkable job of not only planning seeds about that, giving even individuals running for offices that aren't at the national level, things to go and shoot for.

College education ought to be free. Healthcare is a right. I mean, these are basics. And Bernie emphasized those in a very simple manner that caught on in a significant way. He absolutely changed the conversation of democratic policies in this country. And that's huge.

And we learned that we can do grassroots. Absolutely. Again, whether you were for Hillary or for Bernie or who you were for, what's important is that we learned that we can do that, that we have the ability as individuals to influence. And like you said, I think it starts with those kind of the city councils and the school boards. And people always would say, people get upset and they get frazzled and they say, my goodness, look at what's happening

in the country right now. And what can I do to make a difference? And this is the epitome of how you make a difference. Government is a reflection of us. And if we are not engaged in government, then we shall be ruled by evil men as Plato said. Yeah, it is ours. It is ours.

It's our government. And the structure is there, but you have to be engaged. And it's easy right now with Trump to get frustrated to fill as though you're just tapped out. You don't have any more energy. It only have more capacity for outrage. You gotta find it, you gotta channel it, and put it into something that's tangible.

Yeah, I get some weaving done, you know. Yeah, me and me. A little bit of gardening around the house. That's always good to read a book. Well, Tommy, how, thank you for coming in and joining me today. I was really, it's really been great to talk to you. And I really appreciate it. It's great to see you and vote Tommy 2018.com is the website. That's vote Tommy 2018.com. That's a great message. Thank you so much. All right, guys, big show. The Marshall plans back in the news.

Avanatti might have just corroborated part of the steel dossier on our show. And we found out why Mueller went to New York and Giuliani had a breakdown. Oh my God. That boutina stuff tying the Marshall plan together with Cohen. It's insane. And Trump and everyone is just... Any vanga, everything. Giuliani, it's all been like to me, just crazy, crazy news episode.

Yeah, it's all crumbling. It's starting to come down, I think. And I don't think it's gonna stop the Trump Train of destruction. Ah! It's the reverse Trump Train. Hey, new. Sorry, is that?

The Mullertrain. The Mullertrain. The Mullertrain. I like that, yeah. That's great. So eat it. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyway, you guys, that's been our show. I've been A.G. I've been Jolissa Johnson. I've been Jordan Coburn. And this is Muller She Wrote. Muller She Wrote is produced and engineered by AG with editing and logo design by Jolissa Johnson. Markick Consulting by Amanda Reader at Unicorn Creative.

Our digital media director and subscriber managers are Jordan Coburn and Sarah Hershberger Valencia. Fact checking and research by AG is support from Jolissa Johnson and Jordan Coburn. Mullershee wrote staff includes AG, Jolissa Johnson, Jordan Coburn, Sarah Hershberger Valencia, Jessie Egan, and Sarah Lee Steiner. Our web design and branding are by Joelle Reader with Moxie Design Studios, and our website is MoxieRote.com. Hi, I'm Harry Lickman, host of Talking Feds. Around table, the brings together prominent figures from government law and journalism

for a dynamic discussion of the most important topics of the day. Each Monday, I'm joined by a slate of Feds favorites at new voices. To break down the headlines and give the insiders view of what's going on in Washington and beyond. Plus, sidebar is explaining important legal concepts read by your favorite celebrities. Find Talking Feds wherever you get your podcasts. M-S-O-W-Media. you