Jack - Felonious Barr

Episode Date: January 27, 2020

We have a big show for you today with all your favorites plus an interview about the trustworthiness of the Southern District of New York and Lev Parnas with real life lawyer and host of the Opening Arguments podcast Andrew Torrez.

I'm Greg Oliar. Four years ago, I stopped writing novels to report on the crimes of Donald Trump and his associates. In 2018, I wrote a best-selling book about it, Dirty Rubels. In 2019, I launched Proveil, a bi-weekly column about Trump and Putin, spies and mobsters, and so many traders! Trump may be gone, but the damage he wrought will take years to fully understand. Join me and a revolving crew of contributors and guests as we try to make sense of it all. This is Preveil. Thanks to Noom for supporting Mollarshi Road. Getting in shape isn't a better number on the scale, and Noom helps you develop new relationships with food.

Build healthier habits and feel better about yourself. Sign up for your trial today at noom.com slash AG. And thanks to Noemi for supporting Mollarshi Road. Noemi designs and manufactures everything in-house and sells directly to consumers with a lifetime warranty and free shipping. Go to HelloNoemi.com slash AG to get $50 off your first purchase with promo code AG. And thanks to Third Love for supporting Mueller She wrote. Third Love knows there's a perfect broth for everyone so right now they're offering our listeners 15% off your first order. Go to ThirdLove.com

slash AG to find yours today. This is Jack Bryan, the co-writer and director of Active Measures and you are listening to Mother She Wrote, lucky you. So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. 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, not 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 She Road. I'm your host A.G. and with me today is... No one. Just you and I. Sharing our love together. Oh, my master. Yes, that is right. Mandy is celebrating her birthday in London, and Jordan is taking a day off today. I am here, and I'm going to bring you the news, and we have a big show for you today with

all your favorites. I'm A.G. Obviously, and we do have an interview about the trustworthiness of the Southern District of New York and Lev Parnas with real-life lawyer and host of the opening arguments podcast Andrew Torres so I'm really looking forward to that. We do have a lot of news to cram in but first we have some corrections. It's time to stay! It's time for me to say I'm sorry! Oh, I made a mistake.

Oh. Okay, so from Crystal Denecki, I believe that's how that's pronounced. Let me know if it's not. Martha Stewart wasn't convicted for insider trading. She was convicted of making false statements to federal investigators and obstructing an agency proceeding. This is an excellent example of how someone can crime by impeding an investigation, even if it's never proven that they did the thing they were originally being investigated for.

On the other hand, I've always supported, or excuse me, she says, I've always suspected that someone chose to make an example of misstuart in particular because she's a successful woman. As we all know, that was Comey, he wrote about it in his book, A Higher Loyalty, and said, if I didn't go after her, then I wouldn't be applying the law equally to everyone, but that's an interesting theory. Another correction from Kate McCullough, former FBI.

She says, this isn't necessarily a correction because you glossed over the comments pretty quickly, but I heard twice Tuesday and Thursday regarding FBI investigating Burisma and the hack by the GRU. She says, I doubt the FBI would investigate without Ukraine asking. It's completely out of US jurisdiction. It is a Ukrainian company hacked by a foreign intelligence service. Maybe NSA or CIA would have interesting methods, but from my limited experience, I don't see how the FBI would have authority to proactively investigate. And that's a really good point, Kate. What I was thinking was that the FBI was investigating, yet again, a foreign government interfering in our elections, and that might be part of that investigation.

But you're right, this is Russia hacking, Burisma in Ukraine. And so unless the FBI were looking into that being somehow connected to Trump or the Trump campaign or other interests in the United States, I don't think the FBI would be out there doing it on their own. Although we did get a story from the New York Times, I think last month saying that they were not, they wouldn't say they were officially investigating, you know, Russia interfering in our 2020 elections, but that could be part of it. And then from Jose Pignetta on daily beans, one of you mentioned the oldest millennial was 35. As a 37 year old person, I felt compelled to tell you that according to the bastion of truth that is Wikipedia, a reference that proves I am a millennial. Millennials of the cohort born between 1981 to 1996,

generally reaching adulthood in the early 21st century. All right, well thank you for that. And then Jeff Nathan says, using the no fly list as a means to prevent gun ownership as an awful idea, one rejected by the ACLU, and then they have a couple of links here. It's plagued with inaccuracies and common names worse. It's a list of people too dangerous to fly under any circumstances, but too innocuous

to be arrested. And while I agree with that, I think what I want to say is that if they fix the no-fly list, I know it's got problems with it, then that might be something to use. I wouldn't say to use it as it is with all of its errors and mistakes that it currently has as pointed out by the ACLU, but thank you for that correction. And Ron Katow says, in this past Sunday's episode, Mall Panifort, at 2032, you mentioned California State Senator John Morgan from Brentwood, who works for a security firm called area one

and uh... rowan says john john morgan is a state senator from new hampshire not california well there that is a legit correction i thought brantwood worked for area one which is based in california i thought he was a california but he is not he has new hampshire state senator so thank you and then harvst says on Tuesday,

January 21st, AG mentioned again that Arizona didn't have an MLK holiday until 2006, but here's the timeline. In 1986, the holiday was declared by Governor Bruce Babitt, a Democrat. And in 1987, the holiday was repealed by Governor Evan Meacham, Republican. That's I think the guy that was recalled and replaced by Rose Mofford. And then in 1992, Arizona voters reinstated the holiday Meekam Republican. That's I think the guy that was recalled and replaced by Rose Mofford. And then in 1992, Arizona voters reinstated the holiday by referendum. So that was it, 1992. There was a vote in 1990,

but because there were two competing propositions, neither got enough votes. All right, those are corrections. Thank you for sending them in. If you have any corrections, please visit mullersheywrote.com. Click contact, select corrections, and build us a compliment sandwich. We'll get it right eventually, I promise. And with corrections out of the way, let's get to the news with just the facts.

Okay, so let's do a quick impeachment update for you. For more robust impeachment coverage, check out our sister podcast called The Daily Beans. It comes out early tomorrow morning, or if you're a patron of this podcast, you can get the Daily Beans ad-free and the night before it goes out to the public. So this week, the trial started in earnest. We know last week they were all, they signed the oath book and Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in. But this is when they started the debate on the rules and then the Dems took 21 of their 24 hours laying out the facts in a very impressive presentation that even Lindsey Graham and Matt Gates admitted was

really well done. A lot of Republicans were like, hey, well done. I think Matt Gates actually said something like, that was so great, you know, and then the Trump's defense team looked like they were doing an eighth grade book report and then he said never mind eighth graders probably know how to use iPads and PowerPoint so interesting. So the Republicans did start their defense and took only and that was Saturday and they took only two hours of the eight a little over two of the eight that they had available to them. Their defense was pretty weak they brought up the Ukraine 2016 conspiracy theory that they hacked the elections and actually made a really good case for witnesses by repeating over and over that they haven't heard from

firsthand witnesses. That makes the case for witnesses and documents, even if you don't believe the House manager's facts. Although a lot of Republican senators have said, look, it's not so much that we don't want witnesses or a fair trial. It's that we have to consider what the House sent us and they didn't do their job by going through the courts to get all these subpoenas for witnesses and testimony. They should have done that.

And they compare it to the Clinton trial, but of course, Clinton, they had, by over a year of a Ken Star investigation with all the depositions and everything. And in this case, as you know, Pelosi and the House managers are like, look, it was, and it was urgent. It was an emergency to get this done because if we had litigated this, if we had let the subpoena for cup or mingo through, if we'd subpoenaed Bolton and Mulvaney, it would have gone through the courts. It would have been delayed and it probably would have gone past this election. And that is not good because, you know, as you know, Trump will cheat in this election. That sort of was my whole point about holding the articles, because I don't think impeaching him and acquitting him is going to stop him from cheating. But, you know, again, I've always, not always,

but I have learned Nancy has a plan and we'll see how this works out. And also running in parallel to the impeachment is the real world where evidence keeps coming out, implicating the president, including the breaking news this weekend that an audio tape exists of Trump telling Parnaas and a small group, including Fruiman and Junior at a dinner in April of 2018 at the Trump D.C. hotel downtown to get rid of Yvonnevich. ABC or excuse me, CBS released the audio and we clearly hear Trump saying get rid of her, get her out tomorrow, get her out tomorrow, okay, do it. And we have that audio, we played on the daily beans and for more

conversation about that tape and some of the other things said during that meeting that the house had on audio that carries massive implications for the Trump administration. You can stick around for the interview today with Andrew Torres. We're going to talk about that. Also in impeachment news Mike Pompeo has come out saying he's willing to testify if legally required required which means he knows he won't be legally required because he's a chicken shit and he's made that clear and his embarrassing performance in an NPR interview with Mary Louise Kelly in which he refuses to answer Ukraine questions and afterwards yells at her for as long as the interview took

saying do you think Americans give a fuck about Ukraine and then asking her if she can point out Ukraine on a map and then had a blank, gotcha map ready to go. And then she did point it out and then he snatched it away and said, people will hear about this and then he left. So that was all on the record. So NPR released the story about the Coda to that interview and Pompeo made an official statement in response

accusing Mary Louise Kelly of lying to him twice because she said she wouldn't ask about Ukraine and because she thought the post interview was off the record, neither of those things are true. He then called the media unhinged and said, well, in implied, she was unable to point out Ukraine on the map saying, you know, Bangladesh is not Ukraine and I think he's actually, I think he's actually confusing Bangladesh with Budapest, but you know, either bangle dashes not you create and i think he's actually i think he's actually confusing bangle dashed with boot of past but that you know either way he admitted he carries blank maps around with them like a fucking weirdo

that's just uh... that's just astounding to me secretary of state that's your secretary of state anyhow pampayow would not agree to testify i don't think if he actually had to which makes me think the administration is certain there will be uh be no vote for witnesses or a couple, not enough, not a majority. Though new polling shows 72% of Americans want witnesses and documents, including 69% of Republicans.

So, they may vote no for witnesses, but I think they'll pay the price in 2020. And then next, in the news, the Justice Department is conceding that it had insufficient cause to continue to monitor Carter Page, Hatboy. According to records made public late Thursday, the Department of Justice told the court that two of the four FISA applications for renewal for Carter Page had insufficient predication to establish probable cause. Now, is anyone surprised that Bill Barr is telling the

courts in opposition to the Inspector General's findings that they did not have enough evidence to surveil Carter Page? First, nothing grabbed from the surveillance of Page was used in or to open any other investigations into Trump or Russia. Second, Carter Page wasn't charged with anything. The warrants were issued in September of 2016. Crossfire hurricane was opened in earnest months earlier, based on the pop-adopolis drunk bag. And third, nobody gives a shit about Carter Page.

Yet this Department of Justice keeps trying to make this fice of thing the entire crux of their defense that Russia didn't hack the elections and Mueller was appointed improperly. Despite the multiple convictions Mueller got and every single federal judge that found Mueller's appointment authorized. And so it's just kind of,

everyone's pointing to this, all the conservatives and Trumpers are like, oh look, the Department of Justice itself is saying, it didn't have enough, it didn't have predicate to get these fice awards. And yes, there were mistakes made with the fysa warrants, but again, nothing from Carter Page was used. Carter Page was not with the Trump campaign while he was being surveilled.

It's just the weirdest defense to hang your hat on, so to speak, your Carter Page hat, your floppy Padre's free hat night hat. Also in the news, last December, Congress passed a Defense Bill National Defense Authorization Act, which included a provision ordering the DNI, or Director of National Intelligence to provide Congress an unclassified report, identifying those responsible for the murder

of Washington Post journalist Jamal Kashoggi. The, and that was in the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul in 2018, as we know. That deadline passed last week, and nothing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. And that's in violation of the National Defense Authorization Act. That's against the law. And as we know, the CIA has concluded, Mohammed Bonsa, or Mohammed bin Salman, ordered the killing.

Ron Wyden, a senator, has written to Joseph Maguire, that's the DNI, saying our office has asked the ODNI, that's the office of the DNI, about the status of that information and has not received a response. So that's really interesting. And according to BuzzFeed, the provision in the NDAA required conclusions and evidence about the advanced knowledge and role of any current or former official of the government of Saudi Arabia, or any current or former senior Saudi political figure over the directing, ordering, or tampering of evidence, and it asks for a list of foreigners that were responsible for or complicit in ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing and act, or acts, contributing to or causing Kashshoggi's death,

as well as anyone who impeded the impartial investigation of his killing. So all that sort of going on behind the scenes while this impeachment trial is headed towards now Monday, I think we're going to have a full or a close to a full eight hour presentation by Trump's legal team and also on Tuesday. And then Wednesday and Thursday, maybe Friday, I expect to do the questions by senators. I think it's a 16-hour block. Then there will be a four-hour debate and then a vote up or down on whether witnesses will happen. Romney has said he's likely to vote for witnesses, but as you know, we need four Republican

senators to break ranks and and vote for them and of course uh... mary kowski and collins are just shocked by what they heard uh... adam shif say uh... when he reported something that came out from cbs news uh... that uh... someone had heard and an unnamed source had heard trump threatened senators saying he would put their heads on pikes if they voted against him. And now they're saying, well, that just makes me so angry

that you would say that, that I'm going to, you know, I'm going to shit all over the Constitution now because I'm mad you hurt my feelings. So, yes, feelings are real, yes, people have feelings, but I don't think that that's a reason to not take your oath to the Constitution or your job as a senator seriously. But honestly, I think they were looking for anything, any way out to be able to convince their constituents that they shouldn't vote for witnesses. I'm surprised they use that as an excuse. We'll be right back with hot notes in the fantasy indictment leak, so stay with us. Hey everybody, it's A.G. and this episode of Molar Shirod is brought to you by NUME.

Getting in shape doesn't have to be about losing weight or a magic number on the scale. It's about building healthier habits and feeling better. I'm fitting into that favorite pair of jeans. Maybe that's your goal. Maybe not. Maybe more energy is. But there's many reasons you might want to practice self-care and every person is different. That's why I love this new habit change program from NUM. NUM adjusts to your lifestyle. They teach you the psychology behind the decisions you make that might throw up obstacles and help you keep track of everything from workouts and steps to analyzing your diet and a great food log and recommending healthy recipes. And it's all right in one app. I used to have to have five different apps to do all those things and now it's all in the new

app. NewM also connects you with a personally assigned goal specialist and a community of other newmers so you have all the support you need to empower your change. I basically started this a year ago. I wanted more energy. The initial thing was that I lost 17 pounds. That's cool. I've been able to keep it off with Noom because you picked the goals that are right for you and Noom personalizes the program to help your goals become reality. It's based on a cognitive behavioral approach and it uses personalized courses to help you reach your specific goals. You don't have to commit to a rigorous plan either, it's just 10 minutes a day and they

make it really convenient with a Noom app. Noom doesn't tell you what to do and what not to do. It teaches you how to look inside your own mind and make better decisions for yourself. And if you go off track, there's no guilt, there's no shaming. Just tips to help you get back on track tomorrow. It's a perfect time to make a step towards healthier habits. Sign up for your trial today at numeno-m.com-ag. What do you have to lose?

Visit nume.com-ag to start your trial today. That's nume-no-o-m dot com slash AG. All right welcome back. Hot notes. First of all there was a story that came out about a month ago from forensic news net our friend Scott Stedman and that it was about, you know, possible Trump getting loans from a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank called, I think, DBTCA. And they have, and as soon as they put that story out with their whistleblower, Val Brooksmith, they had a DDoS attack on their site, it was shut down, and they were threatened to be sued, and all that. And now, just recently, this month, or excuse me, this week, they put out another story.

They have now documents showing that a Russian bank, VEB, Vineshkanon Bank, put 500 million into DBTCA, while DBTCA was lending to Trump. There are no direct connections yet, but I would really highly recommend you go to forensic news net and check out this story. As soon as they posted it, they were under DDoS attack again. Somebody's very angry about this. And VEB is one of our top choices for the mystery company

from Country A, which we haven't heard anything about since June. That was the last reporting that we got from that court case. That of course is when Mueller subpoenaed, you know, under seal this financial institution, wholly owned by a foreign government that does considerable business in the United States. They were being held in contempt for $50,000 a day. I know you remember all that from last year, if you've been listening to Mueller, she wrote for a while.

And so I don't know if that's connected to this or if that's something that Mueller was looking into and then stopped and handed off, because we know Rod Rosenstein was in charge of telling Mueller what he had to hand off. And just a real quick thing about Mueller before I get into my hot note, my full on hot note here. A lot of people are still Mueller saying Mueller is a coward. He didn't come out and say enough.

Why didn't he come out and call Trump to the carpet or whatever. Is that a thing? Calling people to the carpet? I don't know. And here's the answer. And I've said this a million times till I was blue in the face. But first of all, it was Rod Rosenstein who directed what he

could and couldn't investigate. He created the scope. He created the scope memos. And then he had to have permission along the way and had cases handed off. We know Muller didn't look into the finances, he didn't follow the money, he also didn't check to see if the vote count

was altered or not based on Russian interference. And the most important thing, the reason Muller didn't come out and say, Trump, I can't indict him, but he definitely committed obstruction of justice, is because if he did that, he knows that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office as a civilian

if we vote him out this time, because the statute of limitations is five years. And if he had come out and said Trump's a criminal, but I'm not charging him, first of all, he said constitutionally, that's not fair because Trump doesn't get a trial in which to defend himself and confront his accuser But second of all it could taint any future prosecution

So if if imagine Mueller came out and said Trump he committed destruction of justice and then Trump leaves office and then somebody in the Southern District of New York or the the new US Attorney General wants to go after Trump for obstruction of justice Trump has a really great argument. Hey I Can't this is not not gonna be a fair trial because I had a special counsel, Mueller, come out and call me a criminal, no jury is gonna give me a fair trial.

The whole thing is tainted. And even if they did go through a trial, they would be able to call a mistrial pretty easily. And so that is why he did not. That is why Mueller was like, so adamant, yes, you can prosecute him when he leaves office, yes. Yes, you can. And no, I'm not going to say he's a criminal because then you can't. So I just want everyone to sort of understand that I know people are angry that Mueller didn't come out more forcefully, but there are reasons for that. And I just

wanted to get that off my chest. And speaking of Trump and Russian banks, we know that Mueller memos are coming out in batches every month in the Buzzfeed and CNN FOIA cases. But we have noted that a lot of those documents are heavily redacted. And just recently, Buzzfeed raised the issue that the Department of Justice was blocking the release of the Kushner FBI interview notes known as 302s.

I thought the 31-page redacted interview that was released January 3rd might have been the Kushner interview, but the Department of Justice is now responding, saying they're still reviewing the Kushner materials for redactions. A lawyer for the Department of Justice Courtney Enlow informed CNN that the Cush 302 will be released with the appropriate redactions as soon as the member of the intelligence community that's reviewing it is finished with their review to ensure that it's properly redacted. The Department of Justice did not say which intelligence agency was reviewing it or who the intelligence officer is that's reviewing it or how long it would take, but, the Department of Justice is in violation of Judge Reggie Walton's order.

And so here we have that constitutional crisis everybody is talking about when there's a direct court order in the Department of Justice is failing to comply with it. And because Walton had ordered the Department of Justice to hand over the material to CNN and Buzzfeed as part of their FOIA suit by January 17, including the Kushner 302. And in the meantime, I would like for any dispensary, if you're listening, to name a strain, Kush 302, I think it's a great name. The odd thing, back to the story here, is that there's been a lot of damning things coming out of the Mueller document dumps, so it's clear why Kushner's would merit further delay, but it's

not clear why it would merit scrutiny. And Judge Walton has warned the Department of Justice in the past that if the redacted things are not redacted appropriately, he would not hesitate to look behind each black bar to determine if the appropriateness of the redaction himself. He said, I'll go through it myself line by line to make sure these are appropriate. And according to Caitlin Polance at CNN, she's one of the folks in the FOIA suit, along with Leah Pol, Jason Leah Pol to Buzzfeed. The FBI has been consulting with other agencies as it releases the 302s, and more documents are expected to be released

in early February. And we don't know if the trial will be over by then. I know that Trump's goal is to have it done by February 3rd, 4th, the state of the Union address. And I don't know that we'll get another dump by then. I'm certain when they put out the Kushner interview, it'll be, any of the good stuff will be redacted. But while this is happening, we of course

have the Muller-Granjury material case that's working its way through the Supreme Court, and we expect a decision in the June, July time frame on that. And don't forget, the Department of Justice and other agencies are also hard at work redacting and releasing Ukraine documents, also filed for in a court foya case, or multiple foya cases. The House is still investigating the Mueller obstruction of justice and is also awaiting

the McGant testimony, with a decision also due in the June July time frame, and it has said it has not ruled out additional articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation, but it has to do its own investigation. It can't rely on the Mueller report. It has to do its own. Kushner was being looked at by Mueller for a multitude of reasons. Outside the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting knowledge that he had. So, you know, trying to think of why they would be delaying this and trying to redact it, he was also tied to the Qatar Investment Authority, the head of a Russian think tank who CNN doesn't name in their article, but if you listen to Mueller, she wrote,

you know it's Demitri Symes, who showed up hundreds of times in the Mueller report, who may have been the handler for Maria Bhutna. We also know that Kushner companies and Russian individuals exchanged suspicious money transfers during the 2016 election, according to a former Deutsche Bank employee that spoke to the New York Times. That was a while back, we reported on that. And Kush also met with Russian banker Sergei Gorkov, the CEO of Vineshkanon Bank, or VEB. We mentioned that earlier, a sanctioned Russian bank.

And of course, Kush met with Kislyak a few times during the campaign and during the transition. Kushner spoke to Mueller's team at least three times that we know of in 2017 and 2018. And there's a lot that could be hidden in his 302s. So some of that might be tied to open and ongoing or stalled investigations into Deutsche Bank or the secret company from country A, as I mentioned earlier, or the bailout of the 665th Avenue Devil Building. The connections of Torshin, Symes, and Bhutanah could be the cutter investment authorities

cut of the selling off of the Russian state-owned oil company. And there was supposed to be a half a percent commission of about $280 million that's gone walkies. We don't know where that is. That could be in there. And what deals, if any, were made with VEB to potentially secure funding for debt property,

for property debt. And whatever it is, it seems very important. And I certainly hope Judge Walton will take a look at the redactions for appropriateness when Buzzfeed and CNN finally get those 302s. We haven't heard from Walton if we do all let you know. But this is probably as close as we're going to get to the molar material because in the June July scotus decision on the grand jury stuff, NADLAR filed for last July 27th, that will be kept secret because of the rules governing grand jury secrecy. Remember we didn't get the Jaworsky Road map from the Nixon grand jury until 2018, so hats

off to the 4th estate for their diligent work filing FOIA suits and getting this information out to the public. All righty, all ready for sabotage. Okay, a new court filing has revealed corruption at the very tippy top of the Trump inaugural. All this week we've been discussing the charges brought against Zubairi in the Daily Beans podcast. During our interview last week with Joyce Vance, we discussed the difference between an indictment and an information, and that's why this didn't count as an indictment for the fantasy indictment

league, because it appears Zubairi is cooperating, at least that's the signal. This is in the Southern District of New York. And as a refresher, Zubari is the only person that was named in the sweeping subpoena of the inaugural committee a year ago last February. And now we think, or excuse me, and now this week in a new lawsuit brought by the DC Attorney General named Carl Reicene,

they show Rick Gates received a quote from the Trump DC hotel for $3.6 million for eight days, $450,000 a day. And then Gates emailed Ivanka saying that's quite high compared to other property buyouts for the week. And he was worried about the optics of the inaugural paying a Trump hotel and paying them a high fee. Ivanka said, let me see what I can do. And then told Gates a few days later, she had a new quote, just 175,000 a day. A rate that still far exceeds like properties in the area, though. And at that point, if you're a long time listener,

you'll remember this is we've been on this story for years now. Melania's friend, Wolkov, that's Melania Trump's friend, who was given $26 million to organize the events. Told Ivanka and Gates she was concerned about what would happen if they were audited. This will all come out when we're audited. So Racine is suing for a return of the money so it can be distributed to real nonprofits in DC and alleging that the inaugural broke the DC nonprofit rules. So that's sabotage for today and with that let's play the fantasy indictment league

I can't come down. I'm gonna be okay. It's just me today. So I get all the picks. I am gonna go with super-seating I am going to go with a superseding Parnauss and Giuliani, if the Southern District isn't corrupt. I'm also going to go with that guy who altered the Pfizer application email. I think his name is Klein Smith. I'm sure Bar will go after that guy. I'm going to go superseding Frueman and then I'm also going will go after that guy. I'm gonna go superseding Frueman, and then I'm also gonna go Michael Flynn, because I'm not sure if the prosecutors are happy with just his one charge now that he's withdrawn

his guilty plea from last week. All right, we now have coming up in a minute, right after this break, the interview with Andrew Torres from Opening Arguments. It's a great podcast. That is coming up next. We're gonna discuss Parnas, so stick with us. Hey everybody, this segment of Mola She Wrote

is brought to you by Noemi. Anyone who shopped for jewelry knows it can be insanely expensive, but Noemi believes that luxury jewelry doesn't have to be overpriced. They cut out the middle man to deliver exceptional, fine jewelry without the traditional retail markups. Noemi designs and manufactures everything in house

and sells directly to consumers with a lifetime warranty and free shipping both ways. You can save an average of 50% compared to other luxury brands. Authenticity is guaranteed with an IGI certificate, detailing color, clarity, and appraisal value. You can personalize your jewelry within cravings or add order custom designs, but best of all,

you can return any order for a full refund, even in cravings and custom designs. They have no hassle returns and exchanges. It's literally an entirely risk-free experience. I ordered my friendship ring from Noemi. It came in beautiful packaging. It's such good quality. It's just absolutely beautiful.

I love it. It's simple. The lines are gorgeous and I saved so much money. And you can even use flexible payment options with no hidden costs and no extra charges. Read the thousands of five-star reviews on their website and see for yourself. So, if you're looking for quality, find jewelry made to last a lifetime from a luxury brand, you can trust its NOME. They have the thousands of five-star reviews online, and we suggest reading some and see

why people are raving about this company. Go to hellonoME.com slash AG to see their collection and get $50 off your first purchase with promo code AG. That's H-E-L-L-O-N-O-E-M-I-E. .com slash AG. And don't forget to use promo code AG for $50 off your first purchase. Joining us today for the interview from the opening arguments podcast is real life lawyer and real life friend Andrew Torres.

Andrew, thanks for coming on Mollershi Road. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Love coming on the show. It's been a while. How are you? I am doing samples holistically well, although, you know, like you, I'm pretty much main lining caffeine because the events in the news keep changing every few seconds.

So it's a scary time in which we live and have our jobs, but there we go. I know. I'm good. And I just wanted to give everybody a fair warning here. When Andrew and I talk, we tend to interrupt each other. It is a no disrespect on either side. I just wanted you to be aware of it. We're going to do our best not to, but I just wanted to give you all fair warning sometimes people

People I can't believe she cut you off Andrew and I can't believe he cut you off a G And I just I wanted to let everybody know it's out of nothing but love It is it was the ultimate level of respect because I I know at least on my own I just can't wait to dive into what you're saying because you always ask such fantastic questions and have such good points. Well thank you and I think we I think we do honestly have a really good push and pull in a conversation. So let's kick it off. I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the Southern District of New York. As you probably know, our listeners certainly know we used to have a saying on this podcast.

You know, because Martin Luther King Jr. used to say the arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. And we said the arc of justice is long, but it bends towards the Southern District of New York. But ever since bar took over in February of last year, and the Cohen case was shut down, and we haven't heard anything about any of the referred Mueller cases. Giuliani hasn't been arrested and that Lev and Igor Egor might have actually been set up by Berman and Barr with the help of Hannity and Giuliani. I feel like Americans are losing faith in the Southern District, if not the Department

of Justice in general. And I was wondering what your thoughts are on the Southern District these days. And do you think bar should recuse himself from the levin i gore case they as as as lev parna's and his lawyer have requested yeah wow so uh... there's a lot of that let's time and packet and and you know as i think you know right i tend to trust in our in

uh... i don't like conspiracy theories right uh... and and i do want to say at the outset right we have zero evidence that jeffrey born in right the current u.s. attorney for the seven district of new york that he's compromised in any way right he prosecuted michael cologne he prosecuted uh... the uh... the fascist on the sky he indicted uh... you know part of some and firm it right so I don't think there's I wouldn't make that argument and I think recently he he's entering into an agreement

or did an information charge on zubari from the inaugural was that was him too I believe yep so so look I don't think barman is a hack right I don't think Berman is a hack, right? I don't think Berman is compromised. I do think there are a number of things that make it easy for Bill Barr to put his thumb on the scale. And let's take a step back. I mean, to me, you know, kind of what the fundamental story that I don't understand why it's not being covered. And part of it is because this is one of my most spectacularly failed predictions. But I predicted in April of 2018 that Bill Barr would be impeached by May of 2018, right? I mean, here is somebody who essentially released a quote summary of the Mueller report that, in essence, omitted the word not in multiple places, right?

I mean, this is just something that is, you know, unconscionable and beyond the pale. And, you know, that seems to have like washed over everybody as the attorney general has morphed the job of the nation's top law enforcement official and representative of the United States of America into the personal representative of Donald Trump. And look, I can't stress highly enough. Look, let me put it this way. You well know, right? If you're an executive branch employee

thirty separate laws that are meant to apply to your conduct rate you get that in your employee handbook and those are things you know they range from uh... basically you know you want example right five u-s-e seventy three fifty one is the statute that put makes it illegal for you to give a gift to an official superior. You can't participate in a Christmas exchange holiday, like I'm going to give you a $5

that is prohibited by federal law. And interacting with all of that is 18USD 205, which prohibits any government employee or any US attorney, other than in the proper discharge of their duties, from acting as an agent for anyone, before any department in connection with any matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. So put all that together. I know I'm being the adults here. in which the united statement party or has a direct and substantial interest right so it put all that together i i know i'm i'm being the best no no we do have all these rules it like for you know and if and if i

worked for a contractor and then i work for the government i can't have anything to do with that contractor for two years and i can't have work on if they use them as a contractor i can't't be a part of that. I have to recuse myself from it. And I really love that you brought that up, right? Because these laws are meant to overlap, right? And by that, I mean, one instance of conduct might violate five or six different statues, because that's an indication where, when you're as the congress and you're like look what do we want to do we want to broadly make it such that if you work in the executive

branch you're not trying to do the bidding of anybody other than the government right? We want nothing that would corrupt the government's decision-making process. And that phrase, by the way, comes directly from the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, corrupt the government's decision-making process. And so, as you point out, these statutes go beyond just formal legal conflicts. It's also a conflict of interest if a federal employee shows up at an uncontested hearing, right? Like a, let's say a patent application, right? Like you apply for a patent, that's not an adversarial process, there's no, but if an executive branch employee

shows up and says, hey, I really think you ought to approve, you know, USPTL, you really ought to approve this patent. That's a felony, okay? So put all of that together, William Barr's conduct, since assuming the office of Attorney General, has been phonious, okay, has been in violation of multiple laws. And by the way, these laws get litigated fairly frequent right there nearly a hundred cases uh... that that that litigate the uh... the the section two o five that i just a fact put all of that together it is beyond inappropriate that bill bar is involved in the things in which bill bar is involved right that he

intercepted the i c i g report and you know tried to uh... statutorily put the kai bosh on uh... transmittal the whistleblower complaint to congress it's it's spectacularly ridiculous that he is the the person uh... that donald trump mentions on the july twenty-fifth call with the zolensky uh... it's it

this is j this is a scandal and uh... i want people to be more outrage over that well we can take this all the way back to the muller report can't wait because uh... he's a kerkel and he's a f out he's a former kerkel and ellis guy i believe uh... which represented alfa bank at some point and he shouldn't have had his hands anywhere near the Mueller investigation the Mueller report any of it for that alone. I'm sure there are

many other conflicts of interest. Certainly more more conflicted than let's say Mueller was for not paying a golf fee at at derral or whatever the fuck. I mean you know I as I've said on my show before, it is astonishing to me that you and I are nostalgic for the We are right there that those those were the depths below we We're it which we thought we could not think and and now here we are so Okay, I think that's a pretty strong case about what what what bill bars doing and then the question is Could he put his thumb on the scale and the answer that is that's really easy for him to do. It's easy in a number of ways because there is such a real thing as prosecutorial discretion but some prosecutions, I can't go through the list of all the stretches, but some specifically require the attorney general to sign off. And even those that don't, right, there's this culture of communication inside the DOJ,

right? I don't know anybody at the Southern District, I just want to get clear. But I know lots of people who have been AUSAs and I know six of the past U.S. attorneys in the District of Maryland, and the way in which decisions get made is collaborative. It means you sit around and you talk, and you run that up the tune. And so we've all watched billions, right? I mean, that's how it works.

I wish Paul Giamatti was the attorney general right now. Oh, gosh. I wish, yeah. I wish Paul Giamatti from the end of sideways was you can tell. That would be great. So, and then, so, so, number one, you kind of have this culture of communication. Number two, you have a real push and pull. And again, I don't want to impune anybody, right? Because if you were good and faithful public servant, it must be hard to work in an

executive branch agency under Trump. But it's not the right answer to just say, oh, well, you know, you should quit and resign. Right? Number one, that means you are no longer like that would leave only sick of fans of loose. Right? Like there is virtue to continuing to do your job inside an executive branch agency. And also. It's weird though though because like Jesse Liu Who is a US attorney, right?

She I was talking to Joyce Vance about about the McCabe decision and And I was like well if she decides to go ahead with an indictment of McCabe despite the grand jury Bocking on it that that seems she would be compromised But would she resign or would she stay in place to sort of shield her office and and Joyce was of the mind, you have to resign or you're corrupt. So it's kind of this hard line that you have to walk to like you said, if you leave, you're leaving all only yes men and sick of fans. But if you don't, you're corrupt.

you leave you're leaving all only yes men and sick of fans but if you don't you're corrupt i i i'm not i don't mean to suggest by that there you know that there is no line right like that that uh... you know i'm always just following orders right like it it it i i one hundred percent agree with with joys fans on that uh... all i'm saying is that heading up a bit that I think she's accurately described sort of where the line is, right, which is why I believe, right, if you had an unambiguous

recommendation, let's say, Jeffrey Ferman again, Jeffrey Ferman has a history with Ruby Julian, but if Ferman sent up an unambiguous recommendation of, here's why we want to indict Giuliani and was then told, no, right, we're not going to do that. And then as it was revealed, you know, the legal justifications for that were transparent. And yes, he's got to resign. I agree with that. But I don't write. These are all what makes this difficult is that we're trying to anticipate in the absence

of evidence, right, what's going on in the background. And a lot of these are judgment calls, right? And so it makes it harder even on you as an individual to sort of say like, okay, well, you know, have I hit that red line? And then, and then, and right, I remember on top of all of that, like you, the precedent is such that if you're a US attorney, like you can be fired at any time, right? And you can be fired for political purposes with zero repercussion trail you know I don't remember the the uh... you know monika goodling back in uh...

uh... uh... two thousand two hundred two thousand six i think uh... that you know compiled the spreadsheet of political activities of uh... you know half dozen u.s. attorneys jerry bush and five uh... so it it it it's a tough all i'm saying is that is that that's a that's a tough balance i obviously uh... to work on the question

bar should work using something won't no reason to to to think that he will. He's just completely corrupt, to be honest. And then, you know, sort of the implicit question of, well. All right. So basically what you're saying is it's not as black and white as either bourman, will either resign or indict Rudy. There's there shades of gray in there.

And I do want to talk to you a little bit about Lev Parnas and what he's coming forward with. And some of the amazing things that Chuck Rosenberg asked him on Mato on Friday night. We'll be right back with more from Andrew Torres. So stay with us. Hey, everybody. It's A.G. This episode of Mullershi Road is brought to you by my new favorite woman-owned company, Third Love. I am obsessed with their bras. They design the most comfortable bras you've ever worn tailored to perfectly fit your individual body shape.

I was able to find my perfect fit in just a minute by taking their online fit finder quiz. They use your info plus metadata from millions of women who have taken the quiz and they take into account cup size and breast shape to find the perfect bra for you. Many women fall in between cup sizes, including myself, making it really difficult to find the perfect fit because you either get cup gap or spillage, but third love has over 80 bra sizes, industry leader, including their signature half cup sizes, so I was able to find the perfect fit for me. Every bra from third love is made with the ultimate comfort in mind, from their memory foam cups to

no slip straps, smooth, scratch free bands, and aed label on the bra so there's no itchy label. It's all designed for optimal comfort. Their team of expert fit stylists are dedicated to helping you find your perfect fit and they're available to help via chat or email. And third love backs every bra with their perfect fit promise. And this is the philanthropy that I love. You have 60 days to wash it and wear it. And if it's not the perfect fit for you, returns are always free. And then they donate all of their gently

used bras to people in need. And so far, third love is donated over $15 million in bras. Third love knows there's a perfect bra for everyone, so right now they're offering our listeners 15% off your first order. So go to thirdlove.com slash AG now to find your perfect fitting bra and get 15% off your first purchase. That's thirdlove.com slash AG for 15% off your first purchase. That's thirdlove.com slash AG for 15% off today. All right, we're back with Andrew Torres from the opening arguments podcast and Andrew, you had mentioned before the break that you had predicted in April of 2018 that bar would be impeached and that is oddly. Thanks for reminding everyone. That career and that is that is oddly the same

month that parnass and junior and egor and trump had their clandestine meeting at the trump downtown dc hotel which we've heard the audio now and interestingly uh... chuck roes and berg my a wily uh... and uh... claire mccasco former senator claire mccasco who was awesome joined matter on friday night night talk about this and chuck rosembourg had some interesting questions for parnos's lawyer joseph bondy regarding the southern district first he asked if they had permission

from the southern district to assist the impeached insisting the impeachment and and body said no uh... but they did get permission to travel so that parnos could be be on Mato and Cooper, Anderson Cooper. What really happened was a judge had signed off that he could release his information to the House Intelligence Committee. So I thought that was a very interesting question from from from Chuck Rosenberg formerly, I think, of the Southern District and asking if if he had permission as an indicted

Person so so what do you think about that? I mean they didn't I don't know if they stopped permission and were told no If they just went and got a judge to sign off on it. Is that something do you think happens a lot? so Here's here's the dynamic that that often happens with witnesses like happens with witnesses like Parnas. And the first thing to understand as background is, but we know Parnas was arrested on October 9th. He was charged with four specific felonies.

He's pled not guilty to that, right? That scheme, we could talk about it, or not. It's not super relevant but uh... but but that scheme involved uh... you crane the unofficial corrupting elections in the bottom right and so he's charged with two counts of conspiracy to violate the election laws one count of making false statements to the federal elections commission and one count of false education of records. And Parna says he's not guilty of that specific crime. However, one of the things that he's angling for, I'm sure you're going to ask about this,

is some kind of either downward departure or downward variance from the sentencing guidelines. The way in which you get a departure in these kinds of circumstances is under section 5k1.1 which I heard of from the Sentencing Guidelines in which a witness offers substantial assistance to authorities in the prosecution of another person who is committed in effect. I know exactly where you're going with this because I know that Parnaas and Bondi is lawyer saying that the Southern district wouldn't talk to him but he is assisting in the impeachment of donald trump now is that would that fall under that is since impeachment is not

uh... a criminal proceeding but it is a judicial proceeding it's it's a political process it will not surprise you that there is zero case law as to whether assisting in an impeachment qualifies for a 5K 1.1 motion. But there are sort of two things to think about in connection with that, right? The first is, at the end of the day, the sentencing guidelines themselves

have been advisory for the past 15 years, since the Supreme Court's decision in the book or in fan-fan cases, right? And so although the sentencing guidelines are the presumptive structure that applies, ultimately, the question of whether you are going to depart from the sentencing guidelines or issue a sentence that is at variance with what the guidelines would say is it is really an issue of a memo that the sentencing judge reps right and then there's a question of how that that gets reviewed on a appeal that that's different. So even if even if under a technical application 5k 1.1 wouldn't apply to an

impeachment I think it would by the way to to to to give you a concrete answer but even if1 wouldn't apply to an impeachment. I think it would, by the way, to give you a concrete answer. But even if it wouldn't, you can still depart for other reasons. But the second thing that's really worth knowing that I think explains a lot of the dynamic here is that it has to do with the balance of power between the prosecutor and the defendant. Every defendant, once they're charged and they're looking at a pretty significant amount of prison time on the sentencing guidelines cable, then says, okay, well, now I want to cooperate. And every prosecutor knows about, right?

And so the leverage there is, okay, well, and this is typically what a prosecutor would say, is, okay, well, you, great. Help us as much as you can. Answer all our questions, do what we said, and then we'll evaluate that at the end and tell you whether that is, quote, substantial assistance or not.

And there are hundreds, maybe thousands of cases, I know of at least hundreds, in which a defendant has rendered assistance in the prosecution of someone else. But at the end of the day, the prosecutors' office will say, yeah, you definitely assisted us. You definitely helped us. We don't think there was a solution. And so we have that with Berman and Cohen. Yep, exactly right. So that dynamic is something that prosecutors are very acutely aware of. And when you think you have somebody who's a bad guy, and look, Barnelst is a bad, bad, too.

Right? And so you've got somebody that you think is a bad guy they're saying I want to offer assistance you're like you're right I get it everybody wants to offer assistance go ahead do what you can and then we'll judge afterwards we're not going to make any commitments right now that says we definitely think X or Y or Z counts a substance to the system that's how these kinds of cases get prosecuted. Yeah. And Bondi actually did say what, because Rosenberg asked him. Rosenberg says, because

of the sentencing. Oh, he was so good. Because of the sentencing guidelines, Parnas doesn't really need help in reducing his sentence here, but it's nice to have a cooperative record of sentencing. And he asks, but Joseph Bondi of Parnas is helping with the impeachment for that favorable look and Bondy says yes, and and while you know like you just said we haven't seen any in you know assistance in impeachment We have seen witnesses get downward variance or downward departure for assisting Congress and who knows He says the Southern District might actually at some point ask for a Parnas co-operation

But so far they have not. And they also, but have also not asked him to stop talking to Congress or the public. So there's that. But I mean, the other thing here is that Rosenberg said to Bondy, and this was really interesting. He says there's three reasons that the Southern District would not seek a cooperation agreement. Either it's because you're not credible.

They don't need your cooperation, or because there's something else going on. And to that, Joseph Bondi replies, well, there's something else going on, insinuating something, there's something nefarious in the Southern District. And I don't know Bondi from a whole in the ground, but, and you know, Parnas is like you said,

he's a criminal, but like I just can't figure out what it is and what's going on. So here's my best guess on that. And by the way, again, I didn't know, I was going to think no disrespect of on me, but some disrespect of on me. The statement about that because of the sentencing guidelines, Parnas doesn't really need that. That's nonsense. I did a quick look, and part of the way that you can get away with that is because the sentencing guidelines are like 900 pages long, and you have to flip between these various sections and it's super complicated but basically like what you do is that was Rosenberg that said that not bondy Rosenberg was like you don't really need

downward departure because I mean the sentence and guidelines aren't that bad for for you know what he's done but I've heard okay I didn't realize it in connection to that but I've heard bonding make that argument and that is part of you know sort of the the background of the discussion on this when I mean look in connection with that, but I've heard Bonnie make that argument, and that is part of sort of the background of the discussion on this. When I look at the most serious offense, which are the two conspiracy to commit election fraud offenses, I get under a maximum calculation, an offense level of 19, right? And I look like I agree in comparison to, and a fenced level of 19 is 30 to 37 months.

That's three years in jail. And it's in Zone D, that means you basically serve all of it. You don't get any split sentences, you don't get probation. And the difference between three years in jail and moving that down to a 16, which would be two years in jail, or moving it down to a 13, which would be a split sentence and maybe less than a year in jail, to me, that's pretty significant. And so, you know, I don't agree with the premise of that in terms of that there isn't a reason to want to put yourself in

the position of, you know, a Rick Gates, right, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and to the Michael Flynn rather trail, but like, you know, we're going to look at all. The reason those folks were in the O26 category is because they were charged with a single count of making a false statement. And again, Parnaf has that count as well. But Parnaf has three other other counts that are pretty significant. And so, you know, so I don't necessarily agree with the premise of that question. I think there is real incentive to make sure that you don't piss off the prosecute. So you can really use that downward departure.

And then what do you think about the Joseph Bondi alleging that there's something rotten in Denmark, a.k.a a Southern District of New York because I mean You know he's he's saying hey my witness was credible and to be fair that the audio tape backs up what he told Maddo the the text messages and the documents and emails back up what he's saying sort of nothing's sort of been Disproven in this sort of weird sort of like a Amoeba of a almost like a steel dossier situation, you know. But I mean, he's still, you know, the allegation that there's something fishy going on at the Southern District really just sort of, I just don't know what to make of it.

Yeah, it doesn't sit well with me either, right? Going back to the beginning of this interview if you're bonding you can't say what what I am about to say which is that point out is a terrible witness. My client is awful. No one would ever put him on the stand but but here's the thing and I'm really glad he frees the question the way that because I get I get pushed back on on my show for this all the time I read I've been saying this ever since the you know the Parinas stuff broke. A bad witness can nevertheless be telling the truth about 95% of what they're talking talking about and and let's let's put this into context in the first Paul Manafort trial right in which the jury failed to

convict on basically half of the counts most of the subsequent jury interviews have basically basically said like the only we just didn't think it was a good witness, right? Like, we just weren't sure we believed everything he was saying. It just kind of seemed like he was trying to curry favor and, you know, whatever. There was the documentary evidence that got them to convict. Yeah. And so, right, so I am super sympathetic to the counter-argument that i have gotten from other lawyers on my show which is yeah when you're a prosecutor and

you're busting a criminal conspiracy the people who are your witnesses are also going to be criminals that's certainly true right boy scouts don't participate in stuff like this yeah i know i've been saying well find me, find me a non-crimy guy from the Trump that associates with Trump that you would trust, like that you would listen to. Please, I will all wait here with Sammy the bull and you find me someone.

And you know, you're right, because we, you know, we can, I think his 95% of the stuff that he's saying, which is backed up by his text and documentary evidence and the tape is true but then you have this no we were just joking around about you know putting surveil and son on you have on average i think they friggin put a hit on on her i don't know what's going on with this belgian guy but that's not real there's something else going on that they were just drunk for a whole week and and jokin are i i i don't have a lot of you can i i i think they can't friend and and that's that's

that's right to be not implausible but yeah i look it at the end of the day and and and again i mean you know this but just just your listeners that right like i'm a civil litigator right not a prosecutor but i go through as part of my job as a trial lawyer, this experience of asking myself, is this witness who may potentially have something to gain by being a witness, is this a credible witness? And I will tell you, I have had multi-million dollar cases, bigger cases than that,

where essentially during settlement negotiations, right, the other side, I've done on both sides, where I've said to the other side, or the other side that said to me, like, yeah, we just think like, our witness is going to look better than your guy, or, you know, I've said, my guy is going to come off great in front of the jury, and your guy is going to look better than your guy. Or I've said, my guy is going to come off great in front of the jury, and your guy is going to come off self-serving. There's a little bit of a gut feeling to it. What I would say with pronouncius is contrast porn. Here's somebody who's a mediocre witness.

Gordon Sampland. We all saw that during the House investigation. Here was somebody who I think the average person looks at Fondle and says, yeah he's probably telling the truth about all of this stuff. The third time, the third time, he's probably telling the truth. Right, well, maybe exactly like Sean Patrick Molloney, which is, you know, was great. We appreciate your, we appreciate your help, but you know, we also remember what it took to get you here. And that's because Saundlen hasn't really given us a good story as to when he decided

to turn and save his skin. Right? Saundlen would be a better witness if he could be persuaded to say look man like i'm just a business man i gave a ton of money to trump and i wanted to buy an ambassador ship because i thought that would be cool and i got there and i was in over my head and at some point it was just too much man and now like yeah i regret credit and uh...

it got like you know i didn't want to sell out our country to the russian right if someone could say that right that would make him a better witness but he can't say that because he's not there yet but we all know that that's kind of where he had right on the end of i'm sick of the way what's part of the story because I will tell you, right? We've heard. We know what Rudy Giuliani's story about pornosis story.

Like the other side's characterization of pornosis, this is a criminal who's facing charges who will literally say anything you want him to say if you put him in front of Rachel Maddow. Yeah. I mean, you're right. Parnoss can't come out and say, look, I'm a mobbed up guy. I'm the muscle man. I'm the one who goes in and makes threats. And then, you know, and then I hand it off to the bag man

who goes in with the, you know, he can't do that. Talk to what he is. Yeah. But that's precisely what he is. He is he's Rocky Balboa in the beginning of Rocky. That's what he, that's what he does. does that is an excellent that is an excellent callback uh... yeah like the there is a way in which you could get him to to do that right the way in which you could get him to do that would be to

grant him complete immunity right to give him a non-prosecution agreement uh... well i guess it would it would now be a plea deal you know to to a zero months on uh... on the existing crimes right like if if you could assure partners anything he said was important to be used against it in subsequent prosecutions then

he would then get up and give that the kind of mafia informant testimony. Yeah, but we're at a point where the Southern District of New York is going to have to make that offer and that's bill bar And I just don't see that happening because I don't think the Congress can offer him that kind of immunity So you know, here we are and I guess like you said we'll find out so It's just hard to say I'm you know like I said I'm waiting for an indictment or for Berman to resign, but for Giuliani, but here we are. And I think, despite everything and all the nuances we can get in the weeds and we can

talk about this for hours, I think the point here is that we just don't have faith in the independence of the Department of Justice at this point in our history. And that's the real sad part. Yeah, that, I think that's, I love that as sort of a takeaway. And I don't want to obscure, I mean, I want to kind of parse that into two components, right? Number one, the fact that you and I are saying that on a serious, sober news podcast in 2020 is and should be terrifying. And then number two, but that also shouldn't obscure the fact that we do still have like a real

uncertainty. I don't know what P part of actually has and what it's going to take to get right like i have a ton of questions about like well why all of a sudden you know when the uh... the house intelligence committee subpoenaed his records in december why all of a sudden he produced this video tape yesterday or two days ago right like that but that's a little disconcerted to me.

So, you know, our institutes, things are broken and it will be the task of the expressive to try and rebuild them. But we also, I like one of the worst aspects about that is, it means that there are things that we don't know and that's why it's increasing. Yeah, and we may never know it. Well, thank you so much. Everybody, please check out the opening arguments podcast.

If you don't already, I have a feeling that you listen to it if you're listening to this. And Andrew Torres, real life lawyer, host of opening arguments. Thank you so much for coming on Mollershey Road. A.G. Thanks for having me anytime. All right, guys, that's our show. Thank you so much. coming on Mollershi Road. Oh, A.G. Thanks for having me anytime. All right, guys, that's our show. Thank you so much. I was by myself today. I miss Jordan.

I miss Mandy, but they'll be back. And I hope that you had a wonderful time. I don't really have any final thoughts other than thank you so much for all your support. And we really do appreciate you guys, especially our patrons. Thank you so much. If you're not a patron, so you can subscribe for free wherever you get your podcast. It would really mean a lot to us. We love it when we outchart Hannity. That's always fun. And I guess that's it. Become a patron. If you want

little is three bucks a month and you'll become a patron of both our podcasts. This one and the daily beans. You'll get the daily beans add free and early the night before it comes out to the public. And all sorts of great gifts and newsletter and my personal notes and all sorts of great benefits. And we're going to have a video link up in here soon too that you'll get a fear of patron. So that's it. Please take care of yourselves and take care of each other. I've been AG and this is Mullershi Road. Mullershi Road is executive produced and directed by A.G. and Jordan Coburn with engineering and editing by Mackenzie Mazell and Starburn's industries. Our marketing manager, production and social media direction is by Amanda Reader, fact-checking

your research by A.G., Jordan Coburn and Amanda Reader, and our knowledgeable listeners. Our web design and branding are by Joao Reader with Moxie Design Studios and our website is mullershyb.com. 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.