Jack - Criminally Dumb (feat. Pete Strzok)

Episode Date: December 19, 2021

This week: updates for you in the land of Michael Cohen; along with info on Donald's long time accountant and his Deutsche Bank lender Rosemary Vrablik; news on the House Ways and Means Committee's bid to get Trump’s taxes; Eric Trump admitting his famiy is just too dumb to crime; news on the DC trump hotel investigation; an oversight report showing the Trump administration made deliberate attempts to undermine the COVID response; plus the Fantasy Indictment League.Follow our Guest:Peter Strzok https://twitter.com/PeteStrzokhttps://www.hmhbooks.com/shop/books/Compromised/9780358237068Follow AG on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gill https://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://dailybeans.supercast.tech/Orhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansPromo Codes Love coffee? For our listeners, right now Trade is offering a total of $20 off your first three bags at checkout. To get yours, go to drinktrade.com/msw and use promo code MSW. Head to CreditKarma.com/LoanOffers to see personalized offers with your Approval Odds right now. Go to CreditKarma.com/LoanOffers to find the loan for you.

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 4. 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. Hey all, this is Glenn Kirschner, and you're listening to Mueller She Wrote.

So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what I said. That's obviously what our position is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two 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 and welcome to Muller Shee Road. I'm your host, A.G. Allison Gill.

It's been a big week in the news with regards to the January 6th investigation. I hope you're listening to the Daily Beans for real-time updates in that ongoing probe, which is shaping up to be 10 times as big as scope as the Mueller probe. I have some updates for you today in the land of Michael Cohen, along with info on Donald's longtime accountant and his Deutsche Bank lender Rosemary Wrablek. There's news on the Houseways and Means Committee's bid to get Trump's taxes, which has been going on since 2019. We have Eric Trump, admitting his family is just too dumb to crime. And news on the DC Trump hotel investigation, along with an oversight report showing the Trump administration

made deliberate attempts to undermine the COVID response. I'll also be talking with the author of the book Compromised, Pete Struck, about what might or might not be going on in the DOJ and the FBI, always a pleasure to speak with him. And of course, we'll have sabotage and the fantasy indictment league per usual. And I want to take a second to thank our patrons.

You make this show possible. If you're a patron of the show, you're also a patron of the Daily Beans and the MSW Book Club. And by the way, the penultimate episode of the MSW Book Club is out today. Next week, I'll be joined by the author of Hear Right Matters, Colonel Alexander Venment to answer patrons' questions.

As a patron, you also get all of these shows, add free, and you can sign up to be a patron at patreon.com slash muller she wrote, our next book for the MSW book club will be corruptible by Brian Klaus and the first episode airs January 9th. Alright, we have a lot to get to, so let's jump in with just the facts. First up, throughout Trump's times president, one issue most people were concerned with was his insufficient expertise in politics and international affairs and pretty much anything else.

For the former reality TV host, the criticism was valid and led to a chaotic time in the White House, as we know. And as it turns out, they call, the call also came from inside the house. That is, Trump's own son did not seem to think he was that smart either. In an interview with Jake Cutler, Eric Trump said his family was too politically inexperienced to have committed any crimes. Any of the crimes his father had been accused of in the past were just too stupid. As a guest on Cutler's podcast called uncut, Eric Trump admitted that he and his family had minimal knowledge of American politics during Trump's 2016 run. He also said they were worried about how to get people to vote and root for

his father over his more experienced rivals. And that's from business insider. But the former president's son took issue with one theory specifically, Russian collusion, actually conspiracy in the 2016 US election. Quote, we weren't smart enough to collude with Russia. Trump reportedly laughed. We didn't know what the hell we were doing. We didn't know what a delegate was. Okay. During the Russia investigation, Mueller did indeed find extensive contacts between Trump and

Russia. Ultimately, after two years of ongoing investigations, there was not enough proof or evidence to corroborate claims of a conspiracy, criminal conspiracy. And that case was closed in 2019 by surprise, by the way. That came to surprise for a lot of people. We have court filings that say, hey, you're honor. We thought we would have until March 28th to update you on the case for the secret company from Country A. And seemed like everybody was taken by surprise when that company from country A and seemed like everybody was taken by surprise when that investigation was shut down right after bar got there. Eric Trump further joked to Jay Cutler about his inexperience, sharing an antidote from the Iowa caucuses.

He says, Jay, I remember walking up to a caucus in Iowa saying, you know, I looked at this young staffer and I go, Hey, do you even know what a caucus is? While Eric has as of now maintained that he has no interest in pursuing a political career. His wife, Laura, teased a run for the US Senate seat in North Carolina in 2022, though she ultimately decided not to run. Currently, he serves as the executive vice president

of the Trump organization, which is under quite a bit of scrutiny in the second empaneled special grand jury, which is occurring right now, looking at how Trump values his properties for differently, for the tax man versus lenders. We got more on his lenders and his accountant in a little bit. All right, up next, I found out a couple days ago from my friend Andy Laufer that he's one of the lawyers

along with Levine suing Trump and bar on behalf of Michael Cohen for trying to throw him in prison to prevent him from writing his book from courthouse news as two investigations into the former president's business dealings are closing in. Donald Trump faces a new legal challenge from his longtime ex attorney. Cohen filed suit Thursday against Trump former attorney general Bill Barr and the federal prison officials for putting a gag order on him and sending him back to jail after Cohen criticized Trump and promoted his tell-all book while under home confinement.

Cohen, who pled guilty to line to Congress and campaign violations at Trump's direction, had served one-third of his three-year sentence at federal corrections institution Odesville in Orange County, New York, when he was transferred to home confinement. In the early days of the pandemic, the federal Bureau of Prisons determined Cohen was a high risk for serious illness and death from the virus. No longer in prison, Cohen took to social media in June and July of 2020 to plug his upcoming book about working with Trump. And just a week after he used the hashtag, Will Speak Soon, the former attorney was hit with

a gag order banning him from speaking to the media or posting on social media. Quote, the purpose is to avoid glamorizing or bringing publicity to your status as a sentenced inmate serving a custodial term in the community. That was a 31-page complaint in the Southern District of New York that resulted in that order. Cohen asked for clarification from the Federal Location Monitoring Program, and after an hour and a half in the agency's waiting room, three U.S. Marshals came in

with an order to remand Cohen on the basis that he failed to agree to the terms of his location monitoring. Cohen spent the next 16 days in solitary confinement at Otisville before a district judge Alvin Hellerstein granted him a preliminary injunction agreeing that the incarceration was retaliatory. Quote, how can I take any other inference other than it was retaliatory? That's Hellerstein in July 2020 and a hearing, summarizing the terms of the government's home confinement agreement is telling Cohen, you tow the line about giving up your first amendment rights or we'll send you to jail. Quote, I've never seen such a clause in 21 years of being a judge. In addition to retaliation, Cohen's complaint alleges false arrest and imprisonment, negligent

failure to protect, and both negligent and intentional inflection of emotional distress. I think he's got a great case. Cohen is represented again by New York-based attorneys Jeffrey Levine and Andrew Laufer. Quote, it's just apparent what happened here. This is political retribution. Laufer told court house news. They violated my client's first amendment rights by retaliating against him

and we intend on seeking compensation for it. The complaint, Trump doesn't have a lot of money. Maybe the RNC will pay for it. I don't know if you heard this week, but the RNC has given $1.6 million to Trump for his personal legal bills, fighting a sigh vance, and a Manhattan DA's office. Why would the RNC has given $1.6 million to Trump for his personal legal bills, fighting a sigh of vans, and a Manhattan DA's office. Why would the RNC do that? Hmm, hmm, do you think they're compromised at all? Aren't they hacked in 2016 by Cozibair? I don't know.

But this complaint back to lawfulfors complaint and Levine's complaint outlines a history of retaliation during Trump's presidency, including a June 2020 lawsuit against former National Security Advisor John Bolton to stop him from publishing a memoir. Quote, this is just part and parcel to what the Trump administration represented. They stomped on people's rights. They retaliated against those who fell out of favor. Hello, me. And they just ignored the Constitution and the law, and we intend on having the answer for that. The Department of Justice declined to comment for the story, and Attorney for Trump did not respond before publication. Next up, the Trump administration engaged in, quote, deliberate efforts to undermine the

response to the COVID pandemic for political purposes. This is from a congressional report released Friday. The report, prepared by the House Select Subcommittee investigating the nation's COVID response, says the White House repeatedly overruled public health and testing guidance by the nation's COVID response, says the White House repeatedly overruled public health and testing guidance by the nation's top infectious disease experts and silenced officials in order to promote then President Trump's political agenda. In August of last year, for example, Trump posted a White House meeting with people who promoted herd immunity, pushed by White House special advisor Dr. Scott Atlas. Remember that dish bag? The subcommittee obtained an email sent ahead of that meeting in which Deborah Birx, the White House COVID response coordinator,

told the Vice President's Chief of Staff Mark Short that it was a fringe group without grounding in epidemics, public health, or on the ground of common sense experience. Birx also said in the email that she could go out of town or whatever and gives the White House cover on the day of the meeting. A few months later in October, National Health Institute director Dr. Francis Collins called for a quick and devastating published take down of the herd immunity strategy, according

to emails obtained and released by the subcommittee. In an interview with the subcommittee, Deborah Birx said when she arrived to the White House in March 2020, and this is Dr. Birx, you remember her, I know you do, when she arrived to the White House in March 2020, and this is Dr. Burke's. You remember her. I know you do. When he, she arrived to the White House in March of 2020 more than a month after the US declared a public health emergency, she learned that federal officials had not yet contacted some of the largest US companies that could supply COVID testing. Hadn't even made the call.

Dr. Burke's also told the panel that atlas and other Trump officials purposely weakened CDC's coronavirus testing guidance in August 2020 to obscure how rapidly the virus was spreading across the country. So now we have documentary evidence that that's in fact what he was doing. The altered guidance recommended that asymptomatic people didn't need to get tested. The advice that was contrary to consensus science-based recommendations. Adding Dr. Burke stated that these changes were made specifically to reduce the amount of testing being conducted. Because, remember, the more testing, the more numbers made him look bad.

Atlas did not immediately respond to NBC News' request for comment. The subcommittee also found that the Trump White House blocked requests from the CDC to conduct public briefings for more than three months. He was so mad at them, he shut him down for three months. That moved followed a late February 2020 briefing in which top CDC official quote accurately warned the public about the risks posed by COVID. Another CDC official told the panel that the agency asked to hold a briefing in April 2020 on a recommendation to wear cloth face coverings and present evidence of pediatric cases and deaths from COVID, but Trump refused. CDC officials also stated that media requests

to interview them were denied during that period. Documents obtained by the committee show that the Trump political appointees tried to pressure the FDA to authorize ineffective COVID treatments that the president was pushing like hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma over the objections of scientists. In addition, Dr. Stephen Hatfield, an advisor to Pete Navarro, that's the former White House trade advisor, quote, may have declined leads to purchase supplies like N95 masks in the spring of 2020 solely because the products were not manufactured in the United States.

In a statement provided to NBC on Friday, Hat Phil said that the administration began sourcing personal protective equipment in early 2020, quote, the most logical and efficient choice was to seek US based manufacturers help. Hmm. Quote at the time, profiteers were peddling defective and fraudulent PPE at inflated prices directly to the public. Even states such as California, New Mexico fell prey to these schemes, but we had no time to waste at the federal level. Even the shortest delay could cost thousands of lives. That was a risk we were not willing to take,

our choice to buy American goods saved lives, and the United States taxpayers' money. Dr. J. Butler, a senior CDC official who helped supervise the agency's COVID response during the spring of 2020 told the subcommittee in an interview that the Trump administration Dr. J. Butler, a senior CDC official who helped supervise the agency's COVID response during the spring of 2020 told the subcommittee in an interview that the Trump administration published guidance for faith communities in May of last year that softened some very important public health recommendations such as removing all references to face coverings, a suggestion to suspend choirs and language related to virtual services. Butler told the panel that the concerns he had about Americans getting sick and potentially dying because they relied on this water

down guidance will haunt me for some time. The revelations in the panel's report come as COVID cases surge across the country as the U.S. battles the new Omicron and Delta variants. So this you might want to take a look at this subcommittee on COVID oversight report. It's stunning, but also not surprising. All right, we have sabotage in the fantasy and diamond lead coming up. But next, I'm joined by former FBI agent current badass and author of the book, Compromised Pete Strock. And we're going to discuss why he says he's not convinced that the FBI is not investigating

the insurrection leaders and funders. Stay with us. Hello, everyone. It's AGE. Today's show is brought to you by Credit Karma. not investigating the insurrection leaders and funders. Stay with us. Hello everyone, it's AGE. Today's show is brought to you by Credit Karma. Do you feel overwhelmed when it comes to handling personal finances? I do.

You aren't the only one. You're not alone. Credit Karma is here to help you make those big calls with more confidence. Whether you're refinancing Credit Card Dad or paying for an upcoming expense, Credit Karma uses your credit data to show you fresh personal loan offers that are personalized for you. On Credit Karma, you can check out multiple loan offers side by side. Members who compare loan offers on Credit Karma saved an average of 30% on interest rates.

It's completely free, it's totally easy to sign up for Credit Karma and one of the Credit Karma accounts with no effect on your credit at all, making it simple to search for the right personal loan for you. And then Credit Karma will show you your approval odds, so you can choose offers that you're more likely to get approved for and apply for with more confidence before you get that hard pull. And once you have the loan, Credit Karma can help you track your progress as you pay off your debt and even let you know if you can refinance for lower rates and save.

Finding the loan that fit my needs when I need to pay off home renovations was tough, but with Credit Karma, they made it incredibly easily easy and helpful for me along the way. Credit Karma, apply with more confidence today. If you're ready to apply, head to creditcarmad.com slash loan offers to see personalized offers with your approval odds right now. Go to creditcarmad.com slash loan offers to find the right loan for you. Again, that's creditcarmad.com slash loan offers. Everybody, welcome back. Today I'm joined by the author of the book, Compromised, and worked on the Mueller investigation. Please welcome Peter Struck to the show.

Peter, how are you? Hey, I'm all right. How are you? I'm doing okay. I'm doing okay. We have some breaking news today. I want to get to, but I want to have a discussion about sort of tempering expectations. Lessons learned from the Mueller investigation. At the get-go, at the start of the Mueller investigation, we're like,

oh, thank the Lord. We're going to have somebody looking into this. The bad guys are going to go to jail. And as things moved on, it sort of seemed like, this is by the book sort of a guy. I don't think he's going to go outside of the four corners of that office, a legal counsel memo that says you can and died a sitting president.

People were, you know, positing that perhaps there were all sorts of indictments under seal and they'd all be revealed on January 20th, 2021. And I wanted to talk a little bit about that because I'm concerned that with all of the calls for Donald Trump to be dragged off in handcuffs in public view and tried for treason, that people are going to be let down even if justice is applied properly.

Can we give me your top line thoughts on that? Because right now there's a lot of people in the public who are very disappointed in what we aren't seeing. I think that's a reasonable feeling and I understand it. I think there's a temptation, you know, people want, people want their side to win in a way that they feel justice has been served in a total complete way. And that's not the way life works. That's not the way our justice system is set up. I think two road observations is the first, you know, our system has been created

over a long time, hundreds of years, our judicial system, in a way that is very measured and protects the rights of the innocent and is designed to be as possible from corruption and undue influence. And so that necessarily comes with it a lot of things like secrecy and Meeting a standard of proof that is very very high because we've decided as a nation this what we want to do I think when you know that fact then couples with the you know every nobody is going to leave this happy Nobody is going to leave leave whatever your political viewpoint Nobody's going to leave with a hundred percent when there are going to be Disappointments there are going to be things that people feel very strongly should have happened that won't. And I think that's coupled with, you know, we live, you know, this isn't new,

but, you know, whether you're watching a movie or reading a book, everybody likes that satisfying ending where the hero walks in and all the bad guys are rounded up. And everything is put back into place, but that's not the way life works. And, you know, to your point, your point, I think a lot of people looked at Director Comey as the hero who's going to do that with Trump and then it was Director Mueller who's going to do that with Trump. And now perhaps it's the January 6th committee

or A.G. Garland who are going to do that with Trump. And I don't think that's the wise way to look at it. And the other thing I would say is, for all the people out there who are saying we should be doing more, Congress should be looking at inherent contempt and powers and just go out and be detaining all these people. While I understand that urge, if we change all of these things, the question always in my mind is saying, okay, for all the things you say you want to change, let's then keep those changes in place and talk about the next

Trump presidency with Attorney General Rudy Giuliani and Jim Jordan issuing congressional arrest warrants for whoever the heck you want, that Louis Gomer's co-signing. Is that really, as we want to change the system, if you change the system, it will remain changed. Do you want, if you take your actors out of that and put in the people you're concerned about into that same scenario, is that really what you want? And I don't think the answer is yes. So again, I get frustrated. I get the frustration, but it is sort of baked into our system in a way that, however, frustrating

I think it's just sort of the system we have and that we have to live with for good reason. Yeah, and I think that that sort of tempered language can draw a lot of iron, particularly on social media. You, I shared a tweet of you appearing, I think, on Nicole Wallace's show Deadline White House, where you said you were not convinced that the FBI is not investigating. And most of the replies that I got, at least from a certain group of folks who are very frustrated is enough with the double negatives.

We remember when Mueller said, if we could exonerate the Trump, we would so state, just come out and say it. But I think that what you're getting at with tempering expectations and nobody's going to be 100% happy with the outcome, that sort of language is necessary and it's required. Because I am also not convinced the FBI is not investigating, but we haven't seen much to show that. We've got a couple of 302s that we've seen from the FBI asking insurrectionists if they have ties to members of Congress and staff, which is the same language Benny Thompson uses

when he talks about members of Congress tweets to Mark Meadows. We've got a new breaking story today, this guy named Brandon Straca who spoke at the January 6th rally, who's on the National Archives list of documents. The one six committee is trying to get and he is having his sentencing delayed because he's providing significant cooperation with the January 6th committee that could impact his sentencing with the Department of Justice. So we know that the Department of Justice and the committee are working together, but there's so much that we don't know.

And I think we might have become gotten used to with a bar justice department that's sort of leaked like a sieve. Right. And I think you have two people who are very similar in temperament in terms of their interaction with the public in that, you know, A.G. Garland was a distinguished judge for a long time before he became Attorney General and brings with that a you know, A.G. Garland was a judge, a distinguished judge for a long time before he became Attorney General and brings with that a certain perspective, I think, about how you interact with the public and that's typically through hearings in court and through rulings.

And to the extent that that background and temperament meets sort of the expectation of, please come into the department of justice and, you know, bring it back within the guardrails that it had departed from under bar and sessions that between his temperament and that guidance and intent going to DOJ, I think you, I'm not surprised by seeing a DOJ that is very quiet in terms of not getting out and providing forward-looking commentary

about what may or may not be having with January 6th. And director Ray, the the FBI, similarly is reserved in his public persona. He is not a great communicator like director Comey. And I say that in a not-in-a-value, laid-in way, but just director Comey was a very, you know, outspoken, effective public commentator, director is not. And that doesn't, you know, that isn't good or bad.

It's just the nature of who they are as men and as leaders. But when you get that couple together, both the attorney general and the director of the FBI, who might be in a position to not, not without compromising any sort of ongoing investigation or the prospect of a neutral trial, but give the public some sort of idea that even if it's a little bit of a reassurance that things are moving along and no, we're not asleep and yes, we understand the urgency of what we're doing. Even little things like that might help because I do think there is a growing sentiment

amongst reasonable people that there is some concern about whether or not there is appropriate resourcing and a sense of urgency going on to what has occurred. Again, this is huge. I mean, how many, what are we up to? 600 more charged individuals. And these are mostly on the little low level moaps who just broke in. And the focus on the people who were engaged in conspiracies

and working together and who was funding that, who was directing that, whether or not there's any sort of coordination with the White House or others, that is a harder, later stage of prosecutions, but that takes a lot of effort. And what I'm concerned about and what I think, you know, more, more tempered observers are worried about is, okay, is, are enough resources present in being applied to the problem that we have the appropriate idea and sense of urgency towards what we're going towards. Because I think, you know, DOJ, there's every expectation that they're going to be able

to continue their work in a minimum until 2024. But I think the minute, and I expect that one, probably both chambers will flip to the Republicans, and the minute that happens in the midterms, while they can't stop DOJ, they can do everything and they're powered to slow it down. We saw this when we had the last days of the Obama administration, and we were engaged in the mid-year and other investigations that were politically charged. Well, that was the Obama administration, and we were investigating Clinton, but it was a Republican Congress. And the amount of crap that they slung at DOJ, requesting documents, holding

hearings, insisting we weren't providing enough questioning reductions, wanting to set up reading rooms, that Congress can slow down the executive. Congress can slow down and impede the Department of Justice, even if the DOJ is trying to move forward. Will it stop it? No. Will it complicate it? Yeah, absolutely. And so what I worry about, and I worry

about this broadly, not just in the context of DOJ, I am concerned about the broad lack of a sense of urgency amongst so many sort of strata of American society and governance, that I don't think people appreciate how bad things were. And I really don't think people appreciate how great the threat is and will be. And if we're not really, really approaching this with a sense of urgency, almost on a wartime footing, like, you know, the response we saw after 9-11, or the response we saw after, you know, the Germans invaded, you know, Poland, that is the sort of existential urgency that I would like to see, and I have some concern may not exist. Yeah, and speaking of mid-year, I had recently asked you

offline what triggered the Clinton email investigation, because honestly, the way that I see it, with regards to what we saw during the Mueller investigation, Trump, Russia, Crossfire, Hurricane, stuff like that, the things that I'm familiar with at least, the way I see it, the FBI can't not be investigating again, I'm not with the double negatives, but because I'm thinking, oh, they can only be triggered to investigate either

through an IG referral or for, because you said that the Clinton email was triggered by the ICIG when they had to go through all of her documents that she handed over to the Benghazi committee and she, and they referred, referred to the, to the FBI, to the Department of Justice. But, you know, it also occurs to me that you don't necessarily need some sort of an official government agency trigger like that to have, you know, factual predicate to open investigation. It can just be what you see with your eyes. So to me, it wouldn't make any sense.

If the FBI isn't investigating this because, you know, Garland Swarr to the Congress, I'm not impeding or stopping any particular FBI investigation nor would I, but it just, it would blow my mind if they weren't. And I look, we worked very, it is, it is certainly possible and I would hope that there's a group of folks within the FBI working with DOJ prosecutors to were looking at what occurred up to the highest levels of the, of the U.S. government to include Trump and that if that were going on, that it would be done in a is quite a way as possible.

Because that's the way we did mid-year with Clinton, but the thing was that got out because people who are being looked at or opponents of people who are being looked at have reasons and motivations to try and spin the story. And then you certainly saw that with Clinton investigation that she early on, talking about that it was a matter, non-investigation, and certainly Trump was trying to use that as a tool on the campaign trail to wheel and did and wheeled it against her. So I would think at some point, if there were investigative steps being taken at a high level, the Mark Meadows is certainly Trump, but the coterie of insiders who were at the level interacting with the president, that

at some point, people would be interviewed or subpoenas would be issued, or there would be some sort of activity that people who were wrapped up in that or their attorneys would feel they needed to get that out into the public to spin it in a way that would be beneficial to that individual, or their client? And we haven't, I mean, it's hard to say whether we've heard that or not, because Congress is clearly looking at all this, and so you do get statements out of, you know, Twilliger and Meadows and others trying to present their set of the story. But at some point, if DOJ and the FBI are looking at these higher levels,

you're going to start hearing about it because people are going to try and start getting in front of the narrative to shape it. And I haven't seen that, but it's so noisy. It's not, it's not, I don't know that it is easy for any person to see that in this environment. Like it would be, I mean, the clan investigation, it wasn't like there were 500 other people in the government who were using a private email server who were all being investigated by Congress as well that you couldn't pick it out. I mean, it was just that one thing. And if you heard about it, you'd know about it. This, there's so much noise. It's very hard to tell what is or isn't going on behind the scenes.

Yeah, the fact, the only clue that I can think of that comes to the top of my head is some of the congressional lawmakers and folks at Fox saying that it's the FBI that orchestrated the coup. And so that kind of feels a little bit like sort of, we're drawing this thing or looming the truth, whatever you want to call it to me, to get a narrative out there ahead of anything. But that could just also be ridiculous talking points. But I also have to think there are thousands and thousands of people who work at the Department of Justice, US Attorney's offices, of the FBI, that if somebody were squashing investigations

or refusing to investigate that somebody within those agencies would come forward or resign or say something or speak up. Yeah, and I don't think that. I have little concern that that is going on. I don't think anybody is being hindered, any reasonable person is being hindered in a way that's inappropriate, because I think you would hear about it and that's something too that I don't think there's

any sense within those organizations that somebody would want to do it. But that's different from saying, again, it goes back to that wartime footing idea. I mean, it's one thing to say, don't do it. I'm an impede, you are getting the way, or put this on the back burner in some way that's not appropriate. But there's another problem too. And if you just sit there as a leader, if you're coming in, if there's this huge effort and you're kind of like, okay, well everybody's busy,

that's fine, let's kind of keep moving down the path that everybody's busy, that is not nearly as good as somebody coming in and saying, this is an existential threat. I am going to double the resources. The things you normally take two weeks to do, I want you to do it in a week. The 200 cases you would normally do,

I want you to do 350. And I'm adding 400 people, and I'm setting up a task force to bring in additional prosecutors, and I'm going to ask the judiciary to bring in 10 judges from around the nation to sit there and we have to face this as if we're on a war footing. That is an option and that I'm not sure is what's going on. So you can say, well, nobody's being hindered, but if people are just kind of going along

with the landlord, this is urgent, everybody's super busy and we're really got a lot going on and we're marching down this path. That's good, but it's not great because, you know, if you just, you know, post-9-11, if you just said, oh gosh, there's so many, you know, all these crime scenes and all these people did it. So, let's just sort of methodically work it out. You would get to an answer, but that was not the sense. The sense was, this happened. We don't know what else is out there, we don't know what is coming, we have to get on sort of an aggressive round the clock sort of footing, everybody

drop what you're doing and focus on this in a united way, we need more resources, we have to add things into the mix to drive us in a very deliberate and determined way, aggressively, again, with a sense of urgency. And I don't know. And you got that. And you heard, you would hear Director Mueller talk about 9-11. You would hear Congress raising hell about, that was all well-in-one.

Well, do we tear the FBI apart, and make a domestic intelligence agency where they prepared for this? There was this almost sort of, and within the FBI, you went in there with a fear of God when you were talking to Director Mueller because he was going to grill you and make sure that you were doing every last possible thing yesterday. And if you weren't, he was going to chew you out and find somebody who would do it.

And so that sort of war footing, I don't know when I look when director Reich shows up before Congress and says, ah, it wasn't Intel failure, we couldn't have seen it coming. When I hear Attorney General Garland kind of say, well, I would show you and I have that we're going to follow the money and just kind of make these. And nobody in Congress pushes back. I mean, this wasn't like the 9-11 Congress interacting with director Mueller. It sees folks almost sitting down

after a tennis match, sipping an honor palm or saying, oh, yeah, good game, yeah, right? Show them another match next week. Sure, yeah, that would be nice, that would be nice. And so I worry, and I think what people are feeling is whether they can put their finger on it or not, when they see these kind of little gentle softballs back and forth that does that belive kind

of a lack of urgency in what's going on. I have no doubt the agents and analysts and prosecutors on the ground are working their tail off and going through terabytes of video information and other evidence. But I, and my criticism is not, I don't think anybody at that level is lazy, I don't think anybody at that level is not meant to avoid the double negatives. I expect everybody there is burning 60, 70 hour weeks to get these things done.

I have no doubt about that. I am concerned at the higher level, at the top level and the senior mid-management level, about what sort of sense of urgency there is, what sort of resource thing is going on, and that's my concern. Yeah, and I'm also concerned that we lost a lot of really great people during the Trump administration. There was a huge brain drain and talent drain.

Not just, I mean, they were being gone after, threatened, et cetera. You're not there, Andy's not like, no, like who's left. And so that's also a concern. And I was watching those Garland hearings and I sat through five or six Democrats, not one of them asking, what are you doing with the higher-ups of the January 6th committee? I'm like, do they have some sort of agreement that they're not supposed to go after those those tough questions? I don't think it was until we got to Bloomingthal or White House where they're like, all right, what the hell?

And so... Yeah, and both of those, and they didn't say what the hell, but they're both such gintles. I mean, it was sharp. And I mean, you listen to it and you kind of squirm, but they are not firebrands. I mean, they are incisive.

I would not want to be sitting across from them, but it's not the kind of thing that's gonna go viral on YouTube because somebody's being lit into just because they are super bright, gentle, aggressive. It's a different, it's good in some ways, but it's not the kind of thing that's going to seize the public attention and say, oh crap. Yeah, this is terrible, this is horrible, it's going on many changes.

Yeah, we don't have any Jim Jordan's on our side, you know, with good intentions. Yeah, and again, I think that making those kinds of announcements of leadership, increasing resources, showing a sense of urgency, none of those kinds of announcements or press conferences, would I think hinder or imperil prosecutions, talking about who you're looking at and what you're doing and what sort of investigations are going on. Yeah, sure. That can be bad for future juries and future witnesses and trying the case in the media, et cetera. But those kinds of statements on urgency, I don't think would. And so that's why I'm confused as to why they're missing from the public discourse. Yeah, I think that's fair. And again, I go back to the early hearings that were held where

director Ray and some senior leadership on the CT side came in. And it's not, I wouldn't use the word flippant, but it was the answers were almost, and maybe flippant is the right word. I mean, they bordered on flippant. It was almost like, oh, no, we couldn't see this coming. We're restricted based on the first amendment of what we can do. And no, we've doubled this and have four times as many of that. And it just was not only reserved, but lack.

It's almost defensive. was not only reserved, but lack. It's almost defensive. Yeah, but not defensive, but it almost is, and the sense of demonstrating urgency and we get it and we were caught flat footed and we were catching up and we were not gonna stop until we catch up. It's just like, ah, we had this report that came out of Norfolk and nah, there was no way really to do it. So we're getting these 600 and we doubling bit,

but not a holy shit. And there was a little bit, this is terrible and unprecedented. We're not going to stand for it. But that sort of, again, going back and looking to other events of massive failure and harm, there again seems to at least in my memory and recollection to be a different sort of sense of urgency that I don't know. I just I didn't come through. And again, I am certain that people on the ground are working their tails off, but I'm talking about a sense of urgency from the top and more than just paying lip service to it in a prepared statement.

Yeah, agreed. Well, I thank you for your time today. Everybody check out the book compromised, really, really incredible stories there. Although, you know, when you read ghost stories, you kind of do get that sense of boy Everybody gets the bad guys don't they? Everything I do feel a good sense of justice. We're a story-based culture We like we learn through stories and you know them around the fire. Yeah, but you also did good. You do good. Pete Thanks so much and we'll talk soon. Alright, see you. Thanks. Everybody stick around.

We'll be right back. Hey everybody, it's A.G. You know I'm a huge coffee person. I cannot speak to people. I shouldn't be allowed to speak to people until I've had at least one cup. I'm the kind of person who falls asleep already thinking about the morning coffee and I get a little, you know, I get the sats when I run out. So I just get another cup and that's why I'm excited to introduce you to Trade.

Trade's goal is to make every cup of coffee your best cup of coffee ever. To achieve your ideal cup, take their coffee quiz. To use a French press, automatic drip, you cold brew person, lattes, no problem. Your answer will allow Trade to pair you with the perfect coffee to fit your taste. Trade will match your coffees, specifically ones

that you'll love from 400 craft coffees and counting, and will send you freshly roasted bags as often as you like. Trade guarantees you'll love your first match. On the off chance you don't, they'll replace it with a different bag for free. You can give feedback as you sip too, and as your preferences evolve, your coffee matches will too. I love the trade experience, the way coffee is personalized. It's like having my own personal barista. They send a custom batch of coffees just for me. And I can feel good about each cup because trade partners

with 55 plus small US-based roasters who are committed to ethical and sustainable sourcing. That's so important. For our listeners right now, trade is offering a total of $20 off your first three bags. Check out. To get yours, go to drinktrade.com slash MSW and use promo code MSW. Take the quiz to start your journey to the perfect cup. That's drinktrade.com slash Alright everybody, welcome back, It's time for sabotage. Oh, this is a good story here. I got an alert from David Enrich, you know, the author of Dark Towers. He's like, what, what? A long time accountant for Trump, who helped prepare his taxes and the financial statements, his company used to woo lenders, testified recently before a New York grand jury investigating Trump's financial practices

and that's according to two people familiar with that investigation. You remember how I said, you know what, stop harping on Trump's taxes. We know the ways and means committee, like a judge just ruled to get that done. And you know, I talked about that in the headlines. They've been working on that for two years and I'm like, we shouldn't be so worried about the tax returns. What we should be worried about is proving intent that Donald changed the value of his assets to defraud lenders and the tax man. So I'm not at all surprised by this, but it is very good news because these kinds of documents.

And that's why Mazar's was so important. Well, that's why that case was so important. And we know that the Manhattan DAs had the Mazar stuff for a while. So accountant Don Bender from Mazar's appeared before a grand jury that was impealed this fall by DA Syvance to weigh potential criminal charges. Now because he's testifying in front of that grand jury, that gives him immunity. That's how New York works. It's not like a federal grand jury. In addition, in recent weeks, prosecutors have interviewed Rosemary Vrayblick. That's the former

managing director at Deutsche Bank, who arranged hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to Trump. And that's according to people familiar with that investigation. Vrayblick's interview was not before the grand jury. Instead, prosecutors pressed Vrayblik about Trump's role in dealings with the bank. That means she has not been given immunity. The people who described these interviews spoke on the condition of anonymity, of course. And the appearance of Bender and Vrayblik suggest

prosecutors are seeking information about Trump's finances from a small circle of outside partners who handled details of Trump's taxes and real estate deals. Bender and Vrayblik were never Trump's employees, but they know more about his companies and our workings than many of the employees did. Prosecutors are investigating whether Trump's company broke the law by giving widely different valuations for the same property at the same time. In some cases, for instance, the Trump organization provided low valuations to tax officials while telling lenders that the same property was worth much, much more.

Bender's first appearance could be before the grand jury, sorry, his first appearance before the grand jury was brief, but he could return for more testimony in the coming weeks. And I'm wondering if they have those smoking gun documents. It's going to be very hard to prove intent. However, also in the news today, the editor of Forbes, the people who put out the billionaires list testified before Vance's grand jury. And that's interesting because that person could, apparently what he had testified to

and what he went on the news and later said, was that they asked him what Trump said about his property evaluations, because you, you know, you want to have higher property and asset valuations to see how high up on the Forbes billionaires list you can get, and he wanted to be high up on that list. And apparently, Trump told him that he inflates his property values, and because they're like, well, we only think it's worth like, you know, the Trump tower is only worth like 500 million. And you say it's worth two billion.

He's like, yeah, well, that's what I tell the tax, the tax people and, you know, and, and, and he also said to something to the effect of, hey, if I, if Forbes says I'm, you know, I got $10 billion, that looks good to lenders. So that could be a bit of evidence that goes toward intent. It is not against a lot of light of Forbes, right? But this is a totality evidence thing. Now, back to Bender, his appearance could be significant because he handled vast amounts

of financial information and as an outside accountant. Prosecutors already obtained millions of pages of Trump-related documents from Mazar's after a court battle, as we know, that went to the SCOTUS twice. Now they have sought testimony from a man who could serve as a human road map to kind of figure out that data, parse that data. This line of inquiry appears separate from the felony charges filed over the summer, as we know with Alan Weiselberg and the Trump org. Trump himself has not yet been accused of any crime. Spokespeople for advance and the New York Attorney General, Latisha James's office, who is collaborating, declined to comment. And so did attorneys for Bender and Trump and Spokespeople for Vance and the New York Attorney General, Latisha James' office, who is collaborating, declined to comment, and so did attorneys for Bender and Trump,

and spokespeople from his ours in Deutsche Bank. No one wants to talk. There are two separate long-running investigations of Trump's financial practices in New York State. One is led by James, the attorney general, and its civil in nature. The other is led by Vance, in collaboration with James. It's criminal in nature, meaning it could end

in misdemeanor or felony charges. That investigation is about to have a new leader. Vance is leaving office at the end of the month and will be replaced by newly elected Alvin Bragg, who's very good at these types of cases. And there's been rumors and talk and some public reporting confirming that former US attorney Palmer Rance is actually the one that's kind of running these investigations and leading the grand jury. As are a couple of prosecutors from New York Attorney General Tiss James' office, if Vance or Bragg ever seek to file charges against Trump himself, the burden of proof will be very

high. They would need to do more than simply prove that the numbers were wrong. As I said, you have to prove intent. But all these folks, this is a small circle, and Weiselberg was in it, but so far there's been no indication he's cooperating, and of course Weiselberg's lawyer declined to comment. Now prosecutors appear to expand their focus to this small set of outside advisors, who were not Trump employees, but still handled the details of the finances. So, Veray Blick dealt with many of Trump's largest business loans, for example.

Veray Blick left Deutsche Bank in December 2020, according to regulatory filing, she was under investigation by the bank. Vrayblik said at the time her departure was her decision. When Vrayblik met with Vance's staff, one of the people said prosecutors asked her about Trump's personal role in dealing with the bank. And I turn you for Vrayblik to climb to comment. For Bender, Trump's long-time accountant, even his brief appearance before the grand jury has legal significance, because as I said, under New York law, witness before the grand jury are automatically granted

immunity from prosecution, unless, of course, they waive immunity, meaning that Bender could not be charged for the work that he did with Trump. So he's going to be very forthcoming. Bender has provided a wide array of accounting services to Trump. At his firm, Bender led a select group of tax experts who managed Trump's affairs. And, quote, Donald's entire professional existence revolved around one client, that client's organization, and the hundreds of entities represented inside an IRS form. Bender personally signed the tax forms for Trump's charitable foundation until it shut down in that lawsuit, civil lawsuit, by New York Attorney General Tiss James, who said there

was persistently illegal conduct and Trump was ordered to pay two million in damages. Neither, Bender nor the firm was accused of any wrongdoing. Beginning in at least 2003, Bender's firm has also compiled Trump's statements of personal finance condition that the future president circulated among journalists and others to brag about his finances. Bender was questioned in court proceedings about statements and stuff like that as part of Trump's suit against journalist Timothy O'Brien asked by a defense attorney whether Trump's 2003 statements were subjective or not.

Bender said the accountants did not audit those numbers. They took Trump's assertions about the values of his properties and wrote them up without checking to see if they matched reality. Quote, do you believe that different people could reach different conclusions about the valuation of the same property? And that's an attorney for O'Brien.

And O'Brien said, I don't, it's not my area. I'm not an appraiser, it's not my job. That's what Bender said. So that story could weigh a little bit on my fantasy indictment, league picks this week. Also, little sabotage, federal agency managing the government's lease of the Trump International Hotel in downtown DC

failed to examine ethical conflicts and constitutional issues posed by then president Donald Trump's refusal to divest from that property. That's a new congressional report. That's the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. And this report was obtained by NBC News and it found that the general services administration, the GSA, did not track foreign government payments to the hotel or identify the origins, the origins of more than 75 million in loans made by Trump and his family to shore up its troubled finances. The GSA, quote, washed a tans of any responsibility to review any emoluments clauses of the Constitution

and see if they were being followed, including by trying to ensure that profits from foreign governments didn't benefit Trump. That agency did not take any steps to identify expenditures by foreign or domestic government officials and implemented a zero checks and balances policy to make sure the hotel's calculations of such payments were fair, complete, and accurate. The hotel located in the old post office building, we know, reported more than $350,000 in profits from foreign government officials between 2017 and 2019, according to the committee, and about 3.7 million in payments from foreign governments over that rough time frame. Who? Representatives of at least 22 foreign governments spent money at various

Trump properties, including that hotel. And even though the hotel consistently profited from foreign government patronage, it lost more than 71 million overall between its soft opening in September 2016 and this past January when Trump left office. The hotel operated in a loss, at a loss in 33 out of 53 months during that four year period. In order to keep the struggling hotel afloat, Trump and three of his adult children, you know, the three, loaned it more than $75 million. Ultimately, forgiving about 72 million of those loans.

Hmm, yikes. Although the loans came from companies created to hold the Trump family's financial interest in the hotel, quote, GSA never made any effort to identify the origin of those loans and whether the ultimate source of the financing posed any constitutional concerns. Oh, Russia. In addition, while Trump transferred his ownership of the hotel to a trust controlled

by Trump Jr. and longtime Trump organization financial officer Alan Weislerberg, the report said Trump's refusal to divest his financial interest was problematic and created multiple conflicts of interest during his presidency, that both he and the GSA refused to properly address, for example. The report noted that political appointees at GSA were responsible for making federal real estate decisions that impacted the president's personal properties as well as that of his competitors. That's the whole FBI building thing, right, with GSA, Emily.

In a statement provided to NBC News, Committee chairman Peter Defazio, Democrat from Oregon, said the report, quote, brings to light, GSA's flagrant mismanagement of the old post, obviously, and is attempt to duck its responsibility to support and defend the Constitution and its emolument clauses. GSA kept the American people in the dark about the poor financial health of the hotel, and most importantly, who was spending money at that hotel and how it might be influencing the Trump administration. The report also found the GSA did not take action to respond to a specific Inspector General

recommendation that it revives a provision of certain leases that specified government officials could not be party to them by removing ambiguity related to the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Rather than removing the ambiguity of the provision, the agency quote inexplicably expanded the ethical gaps, leaving even fewer guardrails to prevent conflict of interest among senior federally elected officials, including the president. Despite the hotel's financial troubles, the Trump's hotel company recently reached an agreement to sell the rights to the hotel for $375 million. It's not worth anywhere near that. The report said the Miami-based investment firm CGI merchant group is in contract to

acquire the hotel lease and reached a deal to have the Hilton's Waldoor Fistoria group brand and manage the property. CNN reported Tuesday the Trump Organization formally notified the GSA about its proposed sale. The GSA and the Trump Organization did not return request for comment about the committee's findings. CGI merchant group also did not immediately respond. In October, House Oversight and Reform Committee found Trump provided misleading information

about the financial situation of the hotel, basing the findings on documents obtained from the GSA. The panel found that Trump reported that his hotel generated 150 million in income while he served in the White House despite it's incurring more than 70 million in losses. Disclosures that grossly exaggerated the financial help of the hotel or the financial health of the hotel. After he was elected, Trump vowed to donate foreign profits, but he did not. And according to the New House Committee report, while the Trump

Organization commenced its voluntary initiative to annually donate the profits, the GSA made no attempt to oversee efforts to ensure those profits were transparent or where they went. Rep. Dina Titus, chairwoman of the subcommittee that oversees the GSA, says she wants Congress to change how the D-GSA leases out federal government property, to institute greater accountability and reform, and there she'll be working to bring more transparency to the process. The report proposes some legislative remedies for its findings, including requiring it's certain leases include audit rights for both the GSA and its inspector general. It also proposes the Congress try to hone any ambiguity in lease language by banning

the GSA administrator, Emily, or designate from entering into a lease that doesn't at a minimum include quote a prohibition of any federal elected official or cabinet member to share, participate in or benefit from it. Alright, with that, it is time for the fantasy indictment leave. I'm gonna be a candidate! No, it is gonna be okay.

I'm gonna be a candidate! I'm gonna be a candidate! I'm gonna be a candidate! I'm gonna be a candidate! I'm gonna be a candidate! I'm gonna be a candidate! I'm gonna be a candidate! I'm gonna be a candidate! I'm gonna be a candidate! I'm gonna be a candidate! I'm gonna be a candidate! I'm gonna go with this new grand jury that Sy Vance has going on. I'm gonna go with Ivanka, Eric and Junior. I'm gonna go with the three, the Crotch Fruit, the adult children.

I'm gonna go with Raeblik. She might be extremely forthcoming. She could have a plea agreement, but she's also not given immunity because she hasn't testified before the grand jury. I'm also keeping Rudy on my team and DeGeneva and Tone Singh as well, leaving gates on there. I'm adding GSA Emily. She could be in trouble. And finally, a superseding indictment for the Trump organization, again, back to the Vance investigation. All right, that's the show. Thank you very much. We will be here the day after Christmas, but I will be off January 2nd, and so will the MSW Book Club. So until tomorrow for the daily beans, please,

take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, and take care of your mental health. I've been AG, and this is Muller She wrote. [♪ Music playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, Muller She wrote, is written and produced by Allison Gill in partnership with MSW Media. Sound designed in engineering or by Molly Hockey, Jesse Egan is our copywriter and our art and web designer by Joe Elrider at Moxie Design Studios.

MOLUSHIE ROAD is a proud member of MSW Media, a group of creator-owned podcasts focused on news, justice and politics. For more information, visit mswmedia.com. Hi, I'm Dan Dunn, host of What We're Drinking With Dan Dunn, the most wildly entertaining adult beverage-themed podcast in the history of the medium. That's right, the boozy best of the best, baby! And we have the cool celebrity promos to prove it.

Check this out! Hi, I'm Allison Janney, and you're here with me on What We're Drinking with Dan Dunn. And that's my sexy voice. Boom. Boom is a right Academy Award Award winner Allison Janney. As you can see celebrity's just love this show. How cool is that? Hey, this is Scottie Pippin and you're listening to the Dan Dunn Show and wait, hold on.

The name of the show is what? Alright, sure. Scottie Pippin momentarily forgot the show's name but there's a first time for everything. Hey everyone, this is Scoot McNary. I'm here with Dan Dunn on What are you drinking? What's calling it? Fine. name, but there's a first time for everything. Fine, twice. But famous people really do love this show. Hi this is Will Forte and you're for some reason listening to what we're drinking with Dan

Dunn. Now what do you mean for some reason Will Forte? What's going on? Hi this is Kurt Russell, I'm an ice-cape from New York, but I couldn't get the hell out of Dan Dunn's happy hours. Please send help. Send help. Oh, come on Kurt Russell. Can somebody out there please help me?

I'm Deed of Antease and you're listening to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn. Let me try one more time. Come on. Is it right? It's amazing. Is it amazing? Is it right? It's amazing. Is it amazing? Is it right? Ah, that's better.

So be like Dedevantiste friends and listen to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn, available wherever you get your podcasts. M-S-W-Media. media.