Jack - Impeachment Megasode (feat. Teri Kanefield)

Episode Date: November 18, 2019

On today’s Mueller, She Wrote we give you all the latest Impeachment Updates following the first few days of hearings and testimonies from the capitol, including from Ambassador Yovanovitch and Ambassador Taylor. Tune in to our sister show The Daily Beans for daily updates!

Hey, it's Kimberly Host of The Start Me Up Podcast. If you like your politics with some loose talk and salty language, you're going to love my show. I interview the coolest people like Mary Trump, Kathy Griffin, and DNC Chair Jamie Harrison. The Start Me Up Podcast has an easy-going, casual style and a strong emphasis on left-leaning politics. We also have Frank discussions about sex

and more than a few spirited rants. Just visit patreon.com slash start me up or wherever you get your podcasts and start listening today. Thanks to third love for supporting Muller She wrote. Third love knows there's a perfect bra for everyone so right now they're offering you 15% off your first order. Go to thirdlove.com slash AG to find yours today. Thanks to Noom for supporting Muller She wrote. Sticking to a weight loss plan can be hard. Noom is designed for results.

It's out with the old habits and in with the new. Sign up for your trial today at Noom and OOM.com slash AG. And thanks to Legacy Box for supporting Muller She Wrote. There's never been a better time to digitally preserve your memories. For a limited time, they're offering you a 40% discount. So go to legacybox.com slash AG to get 40% off your first order. 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 the opposition is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time, a two,

and 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 She-Route. I'm your host A.G. and with me today are Jordan Coburn. Hello. And Amanda Reader. Hello. Welcome to the impeachment mega-sode.

Today we're going to cover impeachment, the relevance of Bob Mueller, the public hearings, the Republican silly defense strategy, and all the headlines we know that you care about. So it's going to be a pretty awesome episode. We also have Terry Kanefield, who was recommended at our last show, Live at Boston, which I wasn't drunk on stage, to have her on the show. Yeah, I don't know where that came from, but I can guarantee you I did not drink before performances and recording. I was just probably a little off my game, so sorry about that. I was just in awe of the great Greg Oliar. I think I

was just a little celebrity drunk. I can't really really great things to say. He's so funny. How are you? Good. Yeah. How would you be both worried? You both worried. Yeah, we're so great. We're doing great. Everyone's doing great. You're doing great. How was your weekend, Jordan? How's it been? It was great.

I had a fun fact. So, a friend that my mom now has because they met at our live DC show randomly. They're like very good friends. It's cute. Yeah, they're very good friends. They met at the show. They did. I remember that lady. Yeah. Apparently they were, it's a married couple. I don't want to use their names Yeah, they're very good friends. They met at the show. They did I remember that I remember that lady Yeah, apparently they were it's a very couple I don't want to use our names in case they think that's weird

But they were talking to my mom not knowing that my mom was my mom and then it turned out that they live like 20 minutes away from each other So they're really good friends now and The guy Well, she wrote bringing people together. Yes, Yes, the husband of the group came to San Diego. So me, my dad and my boyfriend Ryan, we all went and hung out and showed him like a brewery and had some fun. So yes, make friends.

Yeah, well, they're she wrote. People at our shows, we went to Fall Brewing. Yeah, yeah, so freaking good. People at our shows have said this, right? And it's happening for your family too, which is really good. People at our shows have said this, right? And it's happening for your family too, which is really nice. People at our shows are like, I've made friends through the community, so that's really nice.

Yeah, totally. It's really cool. We have the best listeners and the best fans, and they're also generous with their heart and time. And yeah, great, great dating side, great friends side. Can't recommend it enough. Yeah, I'm good too. the highlight of my day so far was that I had some fresh squeezed orange juice which was yeah that's probably my day so far simple

person I'm just a nice class just a nice class emoji I don't know I appreciate that. Yeah, it's about the little things. Vitamin C is important. Yes, oh yes. All right. We have some really great things that are going to go on in this show, but before we kick it off, I do want to get into my not new favorite segment. I was corrected by calling it new for too long. Not new. Eveline. I'm not new. It's a family deal.

I know. It's like when you're training as a waitress and you just want to keep that. I'm in training button for like a year, you know? Or like student driver. Yeah. If you're a bad driver, I've thought about putting a student driver sticker on my car so people are nicer to me. Or it's just a refusal to accept that time is moving forward.

Yeah. It's just always new. Yes. And as somebody on Twitter said this year has been a hell of a week. That's the worst thing I've ever heard. That's really funny. Well, it was that I can't remember. Cool. Sorry, no credit or credit is probably due.

But it wasn't me. How about that and say fair enough? Yeah. Cool. Alright, let's hit it. Let's get into the corrections. It's time to stay. It's time for me to say I'm sorry. Oh, I made a mistake. All right, from Nancy Norton, when the ACA was first implemented, Kentucky had a Democratic governor, but she was father, question mark, and they did implement the Medicaid expansion.

Many, many people got health insurance for the first time because of the Medicaid expansion in Kentucky. Then Bevin was elected, promising to kill it, but he wasn't able to do that. Instead, he was going to impose punishing work requirements. I think premiums that people would have to pay, so lots of people were going to lose their insurance. So, it never actually, it was there to begin with. He lost because he was threatening to kill it. Gotcha.

So thank you. From Mary Alice Tolbert, love the show. Look forward to it every day. I'm from Kentucky, and Bashir's father was governor before Bevin and did take advantage of the Medicaid expansion. And Bevin quickly dismantled it. His son wants to get us back to where we were.

So there seemed to be conflicting corrections. But there you have it. Yeah, I'm honestly really wanting to include both of them because I was like, which is it? Someone will let us know next week. And then we got a Wikipedia link. So we'll put that out in the newsletter.

You can check it out. She says that she wouldn't expect us to know that if we aren't from here. So no big deal. Thank you. From Karen Rodriguez, from Undead Batman. To create an episode title. And this is more on Kentucky. They did accept Obamacare. The dad of the new governor can't spell the name. Bebeven wanted to stop it also, while the high school shooting was taking place Murphy. CT was on Murphy from Connecticut, was on the Senate floor trying to introduce

a background check bill from the house, subjected by Mississippi Senator Hidesmith and killed. So I think she just wanted us to know that. Yeah, that's so sad. It is, it's the same story, but we know that's been happening forever. From Jason Kruzinski, first of all, poop flaps makes me happy. Make me happy.

Excuse me. Poop flaps make me happy. Also, Stephen Miller and Katie Waldman are closer than Jared and Ivanka. I don't know if that's a correction, but I just had to include it because it's like poop claps make me happy. We get some corrections which aren't much of a correction, so they're not necessarily included, but this particular one, I had to include it because poop claps. That's right.

I appreciate it. I appreciate it. Also, I do appreciate the opinion. Oh, yeah. Cool. We can have an opinion section. Oh, God. Letters to the end. Oh, yeah. We can have an opinion section. Oh God, letters to the end are up ahead. Oh yeah, that could be cool. Yeah, I don't see why that would be a

problem. Maybe we could do that for the beans or something. From Mike Wenthol, Mark Valin, Tristan from Australia, Elliott Biggsworth, Jimmy Olivas and Peter, this particular one is from Mike Wenthol, but they all sort of had this similar correction. He says, I'm always really impressed with how well you're able to keep up on everything. The news is moving so fast. I feel like my head is swimming. In your daily beans episode, it's raining justice. You made a football reference that is incorrect. It is not hazing the kicker. It is icing the kicker. It's where you call a timeout before a big kick to get him to think about it a

little while longer in order to make him nervous. You are my primary source for political news. You keep me informed and saying so. Yes, when I said hazing the kicker, that isn't a thing. It's just what I've been saying for the last 20 years, probably sounding like a fucking idiot. I assume the kicker makes more sense. You put him on ice. Isn't there something about roughing like roughing the passer or something?

You can rough the kicker if you tackle him or rough the passer. That is rough. Yeah. Jeez. Tackling is rough. Roughing the passer, hazing the coach, just the combination of all these words. Surely one of them made something. From Tyler B, last week I put off this correction thinking you would get to it, but I didn't hear

it. I believe A.G. mentioned the card counting is illegal, as mentioned in the hangover. Good source. It's not illegal, just frowned upon, like masturbating on an airplane. Okay. I'm pretty sure that is illegal. I think so too. I guess if you go into check.

Especially if you refer to your cock as the bomb. She says this but March 3rd is not the first primary February second in Iowa. No, I know. We were talking about, I think, Super Tuesday is March 3rd. And the first one is February 2nd. That's right around the corner. That is very close. I also says my beans are that Warren will win it with Mayor Pete coming in second. Second. Oh, in Iowa, okay. Now he meant in the race. And then we'll see what's what. By March 3rd, it will almost be over.

And we're going to talk about, actually, I think it's going to be in the daily beans episode tomorrow. We've got new polling out from Iowa that shows Buddha Judge is ahead. So it's interesting. And I'm not going to mention the other 56 candidates, so I don't think I'm gonna try to erase them. Joe Baker, pussy versus vagine shaming, electric boogaloo. Two, excuse me, pussy versus vagine shaming,

two electric boogaloo. I'm assuming vagine is plural from vaginas. Wow, I've been saying vaginas my whole life. Like, in idiots, I think it's probably just a joke. Oh. Yeah. Oh. The term, the term pussy in reference to vagina comes from a counterculture habit of referring

to women as pussy cats. I believe this comes from the early 1900s in New Orleans brothel slang where a customer was referred to as a jazz cat and a prostitute as a pussy cat. Jazz? Is that like old-timey jizz? We will see vestiges of this and things. Yeah, I like jazz. Such as calling a brothel, a cat house, jazz hands.

Mm-hmm, gross. Spirit fingers. Let's see, that's it. Those are the corrections this week. Thank you so much for sending those in. I think the biggest response we got was hazing the kicker. We have one more. Oh, we do?

We do have one more. Excellent, let's hear it. We have been from Rachel McCoy and she says, so grateful that you helped me through the pull up, shoot some of political news. And she also says, I wanna correct Jordan for her apology about using the word fuck.

Neuse was swearing, it's not the same without the swears. Fuckin' is an amazing word that is versatile and can be used in any part of a sentence. Fuck is word salt, apply liberally. Oh yeah, thank you. Thank you Rachel. That is fucking appreciated. Word salt, I love it.

Yeah, me too. Apply liberally. Apply liberally indeed. I like it. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I mean news. You're right. It would be What would it be? I said fuck a lot the episode you were here. Oh, I see I do apologize. It was very fuck heavy It was heavy. Some days are it was the first day of impeachment hearings public ones You're all jazzed up. Yes. Jazzed up with your spirit fingers and fuck.

All right, so if you have a correction, please send them to us at mullershearove.com. Click on contact, select corrections, and build us a compliment sandwich. We will read your name on the air unless you ask us not to. And we'll get it right eventually. Let's hit the news now with just the fucks. All right, impeachment hearings began this week as Nancy Pelosi has very deliberately changed the language from quid pro quo to bribery. I think that's a fantastic idea. I tweeted about it a lot because I didn't want, you know, the Ukraine impeachment case to be subsumed in reflexive control language the way the Mueller investigation was with the word collusion.

Collusion isn't illegal, conspiracy is, quid pro quo isn't a crime, but, but bribery and extortion are. But you don't need a crime for impeachment. It's important to note. Most importantly, the word bribery appears in the Constitution under article one, which says the president shall be impeached, not maybe if you feel like it, shall be impeached for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. And while an act that rises to the standard of a federal crime beyond a reasonable doubt is not required for impeachment, bribery checks all the boxes and paints the Senate in a corner. Recent events are proving that holding these members accountable for ignoring the rule of law,

including the dem win in Kentucky, the Demwin and Louisiana, for governor both. And if you haven't heard, Ted Drakov, a least-defonix opponent, has raised nearly a million dollars since the phonic went full-newness during her performance in Maria Yvonnevich's testimony, where she gas-lipped the country by insinuating that she and her Republican colleagues weren't being allowed to ask questions. She raised that argument during the time period that wasn't hers. It was a 90-minute questioning period set aside for the chair, ranking minority member and legal staff to ask the questions. That rule was set up by Republicans during the Benghazi hearings, which, by the way, produced zero indictments. So let's go over the major takeaways from this week's testimony. First week

of public facing hearings in the impeachment inquiry, and we'll discuss these as we go. And I want to begin with Mashi Ivanovich. First, Nunez read the first Zelensky call. He read the quote unquote transcript. And he read it and it was a perfect, it was perfect. He read it in three minutes. But the record shows it's a 16-minute call. Even if you take translation into account, that does not add up.

Plus, it did not include the corruption talking points that the White House indicated were discussed on the call. It's from an article from Politico, or you can just match up the White House talking points with what Nunez read and see that it's different. Colonel Vindeman wrote those talking points before the call. And it appears the White House released those talking points as a read out of the call instead of actually listening to the call and releasing what was said on the call. Vindman was asked if he put the quid pro quo or anything in there, the bribery,

anything like that. He's like, no, no, I didn't. And this is just further evidence that the president was not going after corruption at large. Yeah, didn't I read, so, didn't I read, can you tell me what my brain's up? Didn't I read somewhere that there, that Vindman put in there to include just a general corruption?

Yeah, he wanted the president to address corruption within, you know, the prosecutor's office and in general in Ukraine, because it is a problem. But then that didn't exist anywhere in this first call. Nope, it was just, you know, a bunch of butt kissing and then Trump talked about the Miss Universe pageant and how all the Ukraine girls are super hot

and thanks for that and it was just so weird. It was just weird. God damn, is the ocean the new water cooler did? Just talking for a shit across continents. Gross. It is. It's locker room talk. Very nice girls, very attractive girls.

Excellent stock. When I owned Miss Universe, he said, very interesting language. Her opening statement was very moving. Like the person? That's why I thought it was a little odd that he said I owned Miss Universe. Like he's talking about the pageant. Yeah, totally.

It just sounds bad. It does. Her opening statement, to me, I thought was very moving. Outlining the nonpartisan nature of her job, being in harm's way, working for the American people, working for US policy abroad. And that corruption is a security issue. And she was one of the main people at the spearhead,

if you will, of fighting corruption in Ukraine. She was very calm, she was very measured. She testified that while she, and I want to qualify, that this has nothing to do with her gender or how she identifies, she was just calm and measured. And I thought that that was, you know, but she had some feelings too, but not like Kavanaugh feelings.

Thank you. Yeah. God, redness. Yes. Like beer. It's a like beer. I like beer. Do you drink beer?

Senator, do you drink beer? Oh my God, I cannot believe what an unmitigated child he was and is. I know. She testified that while she understands that she served at the pleasure of the president and the president can remove any ambassador, recall them for any reason that he wants, she did not understand the smear campaign against her. Just why the smear campaign, if you don't want me to be the ambassador, just tell me to that I'm done. He's obviously trying to create some sort of false narrative as a reason

to have her removed. And so that brings in a corrupt intent, which isn't required from impeachment, but is there. And why were they aware of her being asked it before she was to? Exactly. She also talked about her shock upon reading the call transcript, the July 25th call, released by the White House, and she felt threatened when Trump said she's going to go through some things. Then, and this is the story of the day for Friday during her testimony, while she was testifying, while she was testifying that she felt intimidated and threatened by these things that Trump said about her in a call.

Trump tweeted disparaging remarks about her, and Adam Schiff raised concerns about witness intimidation in real time. Many on the right say, you know, Trump's allowed to do that, and she can't read tweets while she's testifying anyway, so how is it threatening her in real time? Probably because they don't understand witness intimidation, and the chilling effect that his tweets have

on future witnesses as well. Adam Schiff offered her a chance to respond to Trump's tweets during her testimony. She said, quote, it's very intimidating. I can't speak to what the president is trying to do, but I think the effect is to be intimidating. Trump's tweets likely made Republicans scorn, given that they have to keep defending him and shift immediately accused Trump of witness intimidation, saying that we take that very, very seriously. Yeah, I think someone on CNN said that Trump really took

the wind out of their Republican sales trying to come off as he's like very measured and calm people. It was not long until that was completely just undermined by their own fear. Yeah, fear. Yeah, and she did do a great job. She was really impressive and seemed honestly exasperated at this entire process. Not the impeachment process, but her removal and what was happening with the shadow policy. Absolutely. Yeah, especially after she's another person who served under five different administrations,

Reagan appointed. Yeah. So it's like how does anybody watch this and think that that's a logical argument that they're a partisan person? It's like, what other possible evidence would you need that this person is not partisan? It's also just, there's this article on Mother Jones about how, like, this is another example of Trump being obsessed with retaliation and revenge. Like he's like, has a particular obsession with getting revenge upon people who stand in his way.

And they shared this tweet that he tweeted in 2014, he tweeted an Alfred Hitchcock quote that said, revenge is sweet and not fattening. Okay. Very weird. Very like insight in... Keto? I don't like a very weird thing to say. Revenge is paleo.

Yeah. No, can't have sugar. But like, you know, he sees it this way. He sees it as this like joyous endeavor. Revenge and retaliation. It's like joyful for him. Yes. Yeah.

Very weird. Revenge is a dish best served cold. Mm. As Klingon's and Shakespeare would say, yeah, Adam Schiff, something that was happening with Stefano, oh God, her, she used her time, saying, well, since I wasn't allowed to interrupt against the rules earlier, she didn't say that,

but that's what happened. She said, I need to get all these things, I need to read all these times, that Adam Schiff said the whistleblower must testify. And went on this tirade about all the times Adam Schiff back in September said that the whistleblower must testify. And after a while some other things went on, but then Adam Schiff responded saying, look, the president threatened the whistleblower.

Things have changed. It's like that whole, you know, Nicholas Cage won an Oscar, but a lot of shit's gone down since then. And so he was saying, you know, then he read off in response to this, all of Trump's tweets saying that the whistleblower should be tried for treason and executed and all this other stuff. And that, I talk a little bit about that in depth

in the interview at the end of the show with Terry Cainfield so stick around for that. But that was just a really weird thing for her to do and her opponent like I said has raised almost a million dollars. Yeah that was great. I very heavily shared that immediately after watching her. She's so perfect for the Republican party, though, because she's relentlessly annoying, obnoxious, and dedicated to just lying to the American people. So she's perfect for it, and she's eloquent, and she speaks with a lot of authority. She's like, she's better than Jim Jordan is, for sure. Yeah, way better than Jim Jordan. And so if you're on their side.

Exactly. Yeah. Yeah, she's way more awful. And I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, I said, someone like Jim Jordan is just being a fucking asshole. Yeah. Just not conducting himself with any sort of like integrity. But that Tedra Cobb was able to raise that kind of money within, you know, a day or two. Yeah. What a, what a referendum on what we've been saying about holding senators accountable for acquitting the president. Yeah.

Absolutely. Uh, in, in the removal, the trial, in the Senate. A lot of people have argued that it's not gonna hurt them, they don't care. This shows that it clearly does. Yeah, and that their strategy really is to just lie to people at home watching. So for example, when they were constantly trying to interrupt,

like when you, when you guys tried to yield this time to her in the beginning, even though they're fully aware that that was not the rules, it was going to go the ranking member and then their council. And that was the only person that they knew that. They're rules, by the way. Yeah. And so they 100% knew that. And when they're trying to create all of this drama and theater about you won't let me speak, it's just all a complete lie. Oh, yeah, that's a that was a strategy. I guarantee you they talked before when they were in their little War room trying to come up with a strategy They're like tell you what you try to hand it off to me and then I'll complain that they won't let me talk

I go that's good. That's good. Yeah. Oh, they'll never they'll never see that coming dumb shit Yeah, I was a 100 square foot farm and tried to tell people is a fucking farmer. Also this week, George Kent so cute. And sorry to objectify the vote's tight, but it's okay. It's just about, yeah. He puts up a tie on for a reason. He wants to be objectified.

I'm good with it. Yeah, do you see how he is dressed? He wants to get the knitters vote. So we'll talk about David Holmes in a second. with it. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Do you see how he is doing? He wants to get the knitters vote. Oh, we won't even talk about David Holmes in a second. Can I dab or shit? Yeah. Ladies. But George Kent and Bill Taylor testified Wednesday. And the big story from that came during Taylor's opening

statement where he referenced a call, one of his aids overhered between Trump and Sunland at a restaurant, outdoor on the terrace in Kiev. For new information to come out during these testimonies is incredibly shocking. And this prompted the Dems to call the aide David Holmes in for a closed door deposition Friday. And Manu Raju got a hold of Holmes's opening statement. Hell yeah, he rocks.

He really does. And one of the things that's not in some of these excerpts I'm gonna read you is Holmes was like, you know, it occurred to me as, you know, this was happening with all of the Republicans saying there's no firsthand information that Trump is connected to this, which is a terrible defense because there's so much evidence

that he is totally connected to it. He went, I have firsthand information. I should tell Bill Taylor, and he did. And so that's kind of how this came to be. So here's some excerpts from his opening statement only. While Ambassador Sonland's phone was not on speaker phone, I could hear the President's voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President's voice was very loud and recognizable.

And Ambassador Sonland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of a loud volume. I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and explain that he was calling from Kiev. I heard the President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine, apparently he doesn't know that that's where Kiev is. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, I am in Ukraine. Apparently he doesn't know that that's where Keeves is. Ambassador Saunlin replied, yes, I am in Ukraine. And went on to state that President Zelensky loves your ass. That was a quote. I heard that I was again, bro, you wait to talk to anyone loves your ass, bro. Then I heard Trump ask, okay, so

he's going to do the investigation. Ambassador Saunlin replied that he's going to do it. Addings Zalensky will, quote, do anything you ask him to. And that's a big point that, I mean, they've been reporting that. Do anything you'll ask him to. But in the context of people wondering, you know, that the Zalensky felt no pressure. And there can't be a quid pro quo. If he didn't know about it, there can't be bribery't be a quid pro quo if he didn't know about it There can't be bribery. They can't be shake down if he didn't know about it

To to say that Zalensky will do anything you ask him to puts in perspective the position that Zalensky is in Totally. Yeah, and that's a again direct reference to him asking for something exactly And that's a, again, direct reference to him asking for something. Exactly. Then he continues, even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sunland was speaking with the President.

Ambassador Sunland agreed that the President did not give a shit about Ukraine. I asked why not. And Ambassador Sunland stated that the President only cares about the big stuff. I noted that there was big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. Pretty cut and dry folks. Yeah, so this testimony wrecks the idiotic hearsay defense, which doesn't apply anyway.

It also puts insane pressure on Sunderland to once again amend his bullshit story. He has a few options now. I've talked to a couple of lawyers, criminal defense and prosecutors alike. And here are the three options that I think he has. Well, there's four, if you really think about it, he could actually just flee the country. So five. Here's a few options. None of them are good for Trump. He can tell the entire truth, or he can plead the fifth, or he can ask for an immunity deal. or he can ask for an immunity deal. Also, he could just lie. But that is continuing down the road he's already on. That I'm sure his lawyers are screaming at him not to do that because while this testimony was going on with Marie Ivanovich, just a couple hundred yards away, Roger Stone is now facing 50 years in prison for in part line to Congress being found guilty on all seven counts.

No parole, no parole in federal prison. You get a few months off every year, but he faces 50 years. Now during this, there's a lot of calculations for sentencing guidelines. I believe Glenn Kirschner said at the low end, four to five, at the high end, 11 to 12, I'm guessing seven to nine, you're at the low end, right, Jordan? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So we don't know how many yet.

We won't know until February 6th when he's actually sentenced because even though the sentence in guidelines for Manafort when they came out, he was facing, you know, decades, but then the sentencing guidelines were like 17 or something like that. And he only got seven and a half, four and four and a half in one case and three and another, I think. So we have some kind of bet with three of us for stone sentencing. Yeah. I mean, we can do that. We can get you 10 Roger stands.

I only have 10 Roger stands. I only have four Roger stones. I can really went all out about an embulk. I can make some more Roger stones. You'll never know. And they're not authentic. That is very true. You certified Roger Stone. Yeah, we could be call ourselves Stony ambassadors. We were recruited directly. And then make money. That sounds great. What sweet justice. I wish that people actually gave a shit about them and would buy them and I would totally steal his idea and money.

Yeah, I know. Shipping's hard though. Yeah, I'm sticking with seven to nine. That's more of my beans are. Yeah, I'm gonna... I know the judge is like sick of him. Sick of him so much, but. I know.

But she's still incredibly fair. But she also let her out. She could have jailed him until the sentencing and she didn't. And a lot of people were pretty upset with that. Yeah. Is he not, what's the flight risk? That's the one. No, I don't know.

He's as much as a flight risk as he's a risk to society. He's a menace to society. Yeah, what tricks are shits? Is he going to get up to the church? Oh my god, it'll be very. Yeah, what tricks are shit? Is he gonna get up to my god? I'd just imagine his life in jail just like This just whimsical magical warlock person that's since and I think I'm trying to like corner Right, so just twiddling his thumbs just somebody said he left the courtroom and then challenged someone to a hot air balloon race around the world So that's how he looks like he would do. Jesus. What did you say? Sorry?

I said oh, I just I feel like he would do. Jesus. What did you say, sorry, I still have no idea. Oh, I just, I feel like he would get in there and try to like socially engineer, like, you know, create his own gang or whatever. Yeah, totally. I'm not gonna pretend to be a lot of people. Pinched stripe is all he wanted. I mean, that's not true.

I have family members in prison, but anyway. The manager, you have a bet on how many years look at? How many years? How many go with 10. 10. Nice. Yeah, maybe the judge is like, I'm gonna give you a couple months of freedom,

because I'm gonna put your ass in the slammer for as long as I possibly can. Maybe. And I wanna be able to sleep at night personally. So enjoy the holidays. I was lower like four, and I'll say four. Yeah. Okay. But if it is too high, too,

I feel like that increases the likelihood of trampardoning him. Well, I have some news for you. Oh, because the jury wasn't out long, first of all. They didn't deliberate for very long. I only took them a day. And that's important because at the end of the trial, the prosecution rested by trial, the prosecution

rested by saying, this is important that you find him guilty because truth matters and facts matter and that's really important especially right now. And they seemingly agreed with that and found him guilty. And all seven counts pretty quickly. And it's fun if you look at the verdict because you can see the check marks guilty, guilty, guilty, going all the way across all the pages. And so, you know, I think that they, that was sort of the message. And also he broke the law. So Stone carried himself throughout this trial as though he were expecting a pardon, like

I don't care, whatever, the defense was weak, they didn't really try to do anything meaningful to keep him from you know to lower his sentence he didn't cooperate at all so he's purporting comporting himself not purporting comporting himself like he's gonna get a pardon however Mueller is a smart dude he knows Trump cannot pardon state crimes i do not have to be smart to know that but check out what he did. A lot of people forget about this. And also two things here. You can't pardon state crimes and guilty verdicts from federal cases are admissible as evidence in state court. As we know, state charges have been brought against Manafort, and the same fate could befall the Babadook because of the steps Mueller took. could be fall the Babaduk because of the steps Mueller took. Now, Stone lives in Florida, and the Attorney General there is Republican. However, Mueller took the step of raiding

Stone's apartment in Harlem and seizing a computer. That ensures that some of the crime Stone committed will have been in New York. Not to mention, I don't think Stone took timing into account. A Trump pardon during an impeachment inquiry into obstruction of justice would be astoundingly politically stupid. That would be really hard for Senate Republicans to defend, although I'm sure they'd find a way. Yeah, but it's also an official sweeping pardon powers and you can't, you know, that's a constitution

gives him that right. Yeah, totally. His unofficial campaign slogan is astoundingly stupid so i would not be surprised but remember that and and that's a key thing that muller did i think on purpose by having his his Harlem apartment rated and having a computer taken out of there interesting it continues to impress me and you guys haven't even, even more nuanced perspective on this,

but the ways in which he guaranteed that justice could be served. Do you know what I mean? Like he set it up for, he just reached the torch out. Yeah, he really passed the torch in a particularly impressive way, which is not something I think a lot

of people are appreciating, because they're like, where, like what happened? Nothing happened after the Mueller report, and it's like actually so much has happened. And a lot of people forget about all those redacted cases that were handed off to other agencies, to other prosecutors. I mean, not quite as successfully as you thought it would be initially, in terms of people picking up these cases, but they're still, he laid groundwork, which is still impressive. Very. Let's see what else this week. We've got the Tim Morrison and Jennifer Williams transcripts, some key highlights here.

Williamson, that's Pence's staffer, says that, you know, basically insinuated the Pence was kept away from Zelensky's inauguration as part of the bribery scheme to get investigations into the Biden's. So we know that, you know, that's another thing that was being offered to Zalensky in order to announce these investigations was a visit from Pence at the inauguration. Instead they sent Perry. Hmm. Blah blah. He's getting right in. And Tim Morrison corroborated all the facts here, but doesn't come to the same opinion about whether or not The bribery was an impeachable offense. So he has a different opinion about it, but he corroborates all the facts

And Jennifer Williams still works there. I don't know Yeah, I don't know either because that seems like kind of a damning thing to say. I know. I mean, I'm paraphrasing But that was the indication. Oh, you're doing it shift style? Yeah. Doing it shift style. And Mark Sandey, an official at the Office of Management and Budget, also testified behind closed doors Saturday. We learned what I thought we would learn that he signed off on the withholding of aid to Ukraine, but was not given a reason for doing so. So he doesn't know the reason. So, hey, yes. Here's the testimony schedule for this week. Tuesday, Jennifer Williams and Vindman at 9 a.m. Eastern and Volker and Morrison at 230 Eastern. Wednesday, we have Sunlin at 9 Eastern and Laura Cooper

and David Hale at 230 Eastern. Then Thursday is Fiona Hill at 9 in the morning. I'm waiting to see if they add David Holmes to the roster this week. Yeah, that would make sense, right? Yeah, put him in the... put him on... shit, I don't go Monday, but a lot of people are busy. How long do you think they can really expect American people to tune in, though, intently? Well, here's something interesting. Pelosi came out today Sunday and said, left the door open for the impeachment inquiry to go into next year. And I think that this has multiple, there's multiple reasons for this. First of all, we're just on the brink

of molar stuff ripening. We can get the molar grand jury material. We can also get very soon the tax returns from... So soon. So ours. We can also expect that in, and here's the thing, because remember when the Senate came out and said, well, our trial is going to last six to eight weeks, and the reason they were doing that is so that these senators that are running for the Democratic presidential

nomination would be taken out of, take it off the road. So it also behooves the house, yeah, to sort of, you know, and not just for that political purpose, I think that's an unintended outcome because I think that the intended purpose is to get all of the facts. The fact that we had these things come out with, you know, with homes and they're going to want to find out how that aid was released, you know, and it's being very, it's seeming difficult because all the people who have firsthand knowledge Are being obstructed from testifying by the White House

So we're waiting for the McGann decision which would sort of give a domino effect the Democrats more You know leverage to say you can't have blanket immunity. It doesn't exist and a court leverage to say, you can't have blanket immunity. It doesn't exist and a court found that. So now you're in your extra obstructing justice, you know, extra abstracty, exactly. So like not like defying subpoenas is enough, not that obstructing justice is enough.

Now a court has said, there's no such thing as whatever this fucking bullshit immunity is that you're trying to, you know, invoke. So like triple cover your ass on that. So that is what's happening. And Republican defenses and why Mueller is so important in all this. He sort of erased Mueller sort of erased the two dumb to crime and corrupt intent defenses. Terry Cainfield and I talk about the fact that corrupt intent isn't really even a viable defense in this in this impeachment case But the GOP kept saying that the aid was eventually released so all as well that ends well

But as we reported last week we learned from Bloomberg that five people familiar with the matter say Bolton and the state department Released a good chunk of the aid two days before September 11th not Trump Quote the state department decision which hasn't been reported previously stemmed from a legal finding made earlier in the year filing, I think, and conveyed in a classified memo to Pompeo that the State Department lawyers found that the Office of Management and Budget and Trump had no legal standing to block the aid. So what it appears has happened is that, you know, they were, they were told to block the aid of the State Department. State Department went to their counselor, Officer General Counsel, and said,

write us up a legal opinion that says we can do this. And OGC said, you can't, it's illegal. And so Bolton said, all right, release the 141 million and then pounded sand, kicked rocks, resigned. And then, as September 11th, and this is all after they got caught, Trump released the rest of the aid from the Pentagon. So that's the story there. I'm like, I'm excited to hear more from John Bolton.

Let me rotate it that we can't hear it now. I know. How do we for that book? I make that money. All right, we have a lot more to get to, so stick around. Thanks to Third Love for supporting Mola Shee Route. Third Love knows there's a perfect broth for everyone. Just take Third Love's online fit finder quiz.

Answer a few simple questions to find your perfect fit in less than a minute, then order and try on at home. No more awkward fitting room experiences. Plus they have the perfect fit promise. If it doesn't fit, send it back. You can try it for 60 days, wash it, wear it, and if it's not the perfect fit, send it back. They'll donate it. They'll wash it and donate it to somebody in need.

When it comes to finding a good fit, breast shape matters. Other companies don't take that into account and then I'm walking around feeling uncomfortable all day. But third love helps you identify your breast size and shape and find styles that best fit your body. They use data points generated by the over 14 million women who've already taken their fit finder quiz to date. To design bras with the perfect fit and feel. They're the most comfortable bra I've ever owned. They're lightweight, super thin memory foam cups mold to your shape. They have straps that won't slip or dig and tagless labels for no itching.

They offer more sizes than any other brands over 80 sizes, including their signature half-cup size. With their perfect fit promise, every customer has 60 days, like I said, to wash it and wear it and put it to the test. If you don't love it, return it, free exchanges, free returns, no hassles, they'll wash it and donate it. This supports charities in their local San Francisco Bay area and across the United States, which I love. So third love knows there's a perfect bra for everyone.

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 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 today All right welcome back hey Jordan yes, what's going on with Russia and the UK? Yeah, so an official report has revealed that Boris Johnson's party has received money from nine Russian donors that appear to have links to the Kremlin and Boris Johnson has been suppressing the release of those facts. So the report was conducted by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee. So this is a very, very official report that he is just blatantly trying to block from getting to the public. He apparently blocked the publishing of the report because he's afraid it's going to make him lose the next election.

And he said that it might be embarrassing." Quintin quote. So one of the names of the donors include Alexander Tomerico. He's a former Russian defense ministry person and someone who apparently has gone around bragging at the prime minister as his friend. So not a good look. Friends. Yeah, friends. Apparently some of the names also have a lot of ties, like really strong ties to the FSB. So there's a lot of flags raised there. Why are you getting so much money from former intelligence people, from former former Soviet intelligence people? The Labor Party's

election coordinator Andrew Gwynn said this. The Tories blocked this report in a post-tax transparency so their billionaire backers can continue to rip us off unchallenged." What a painfully familiar scenario that is. Yeah, I don't know what that's like at all. Yeah. And foreign officer minister Christopher Pincher has said he's definitely a butcher. A butcher. He said, when the prime minister has concluded that the report is

publishable, he will publish it." And quote, so he's kind of just his own bar. Basically, Boris is his own AG. That's like, that's an interesting difference, I think, that that Trump, if this were happening to Trump as it is, he is putting everything on bar, saying, you know, these are bars, oh, sorry, these are like bars memos. And the onus really, he gets to sort of step away from in terms of how the information of these investigations is delivered to the public, whereas Boris is just saying, no, I'm the one that's going to decide.

And people around him are supporting that. That's how it seems at least. It's interesting, isn't it? Yeah. If I'm incorrect in that interpretation, folks that know more about this than me, please let me know. But it really does seem that way, that he's just getting away with just being like, yeah, what of it?

I'm not going to, I don't want it to come out. That's it. And I'll decide when it will. And how? I wonder if he thinks he's the most transparent prime minister in the history of the UK. Oh, okay. Here's one thing you need to know about Boris, which I think speaks volumes about him. One of my little tidbits from living in London. When he was mayor of London, he ordered this whole new fleet of buses.

But rather than like, I don't know, like, research the best designers for public transportation, he hired a friend. I'm sure we'll get corrections about this if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, he hired a friend to do it, and then they sucked and had no air conditioning and no air flow, and public transportation in London is really crowded. So he basically was like, whatever, I'm just going to hire my friend to do it. It's like they sucked or that they could save money. I mean, I think it was, they weren't cheap. They were really expensive. They looked fancy. Yeah. But works like

shit, which talk it is essentially the same bullshit that Trump does. Where it's like, it looks nice. It doesn't fucking work. I don't care about anyone. Yeah. Your omelet suck. Yeah. So your steaks, so do your hotels. But yeah, I think it just speaks volumes. Like sitting in a sweltering hot bus that looks fancy, but doesn't like meet your needs. Yeah, and it's one thing to give your friend a contract. It's another for them to do a shitty job. Yeah. So I got to like shady government contracts often work.

They're often overpriced and underperformed. Yes. Thank you for that. Yeah, thanks, Jordan. Yes. I'd like to talk a little bit more about the Trump assertion that he was merely trying to root out corruption in Ukraine when he asked for the investigations into 2016 in Burisma. Two big donors to Rick Perry launched a lucrative oil and gas exploration deal from the Ukrainian

government right after Perry included one of the donors as a potential advisor to Zelensky. The two men then got a 50-year contract to drill for oil and gas in Ukraine, despite offering a lower bid than their only competitor in Ukraine. So that seems pretty corrupt to me. So sending Rick Perry over there, because you're withholding Pence, I feel like that's a present and not a punishment, but withholding pants from showing up to your inauguration and you're trying to make the case that you want to root out corruption in general and that the Biden and Burisma and the 2016 investigations is just a small part of that.

Totally goes by the wayside when you're actually sending corrupt people over there to do corrupt things like Rick Perry setting up this 50-year oil and gas drilling contract. Yeah. Yeah, where are the connections between that contractor and Rick Perry? It must exist somewhere. The contractor or the two people? Oh yeah, they donated to him heavy in Texas. Oh, it's Rick Perry. I'm so sorry. They were getting that. Perry Donors. L-O-L. My bad. Yeah. Yeah.

So, interesting. And these kinds of things happen all the time. I imagine. And, you know, there's just all sorts of this. Very, you know, because if you, like Kent said, if you have a strong anti-corruption program, you're going gonna piss off corrupt people. And everything Trump does seems to be, like Nancy Pelosi says, all roads with you lead to Putin. Everything seems to be to not upset Ukraine, and that goes for this next story too,

Jordan, that you have about the Navy. Yeah, so this story comes out of testimony to Congress actually by Christopher Anderson, who is a top aid to former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker Anderson said that the White House canceled a Navy Freedom of Navigation operation in the Black Sea because Trump thought that CNN had reported on it in a way that would make it look hostile to Russia And that made him upset. This was just a routine operation according to the Navy and this operation was by the way coming the month after Russia had held a Accredion ship and its members captive in November of 2018. So the purpose of these freedom of navigation operations are pretty much what it sounds like to just patrol the waters and make sure Trade and travel like I shouldn't say travel because it's always for generally kind of like commercial purposes it seems if the Navy's involved in like a patrol but their job is to make sure that's the if you're what I read is like

Essentially if you're a ship and you have you're flying a flag of a sovereign state You're just not allowed to fuck with that person unless they fall into some sort of you know, I guess Language that would make them an eligible for a category or something. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So those patrols are like very normal, but Trump honestly just saw CNN report, and it seems like that's what really was the kicker. He saw how CNN was reporting on something, and then took it, and it was like, we'll just cancel it. Called Bolton in the middle of the night. Yeah. You up? Yeah.

They broke you up. Yeah. So that's a question of whether or not maybe Russia directly asked him to do that and response to the reporting that came out or if he just on his own decided, no, I don't like how that looks. It could be either one. I mean, he's learned what makes Putin mad and avoids it at all costs. So thank you for that reporting. Thanks. Now roads lead to Putin. As we all know, the deadline for

the Department of Justice to fish or cut bait in charging Andy McCabe or dropping the criminal investigation was Friday. And during a court proceeding Thursday, Judge Reggie Walton took the Department of Justice to task on their ambiguity and refusal to shitter get off the pot. The case in question is a year-long FOIA battle between crew, citizens for responsibility in ethics in Washington and the Department of Justice. The crew was seeking documents pertaining to Mercayb's firing from the FBI. And Reggie Walton says, this is not a hard case. I was a good prosecutor for a long time, deciding whether or not you're going to charge someone

with false statements or perjury is not that hard, factually or legally, maybe politically, but not factually or legally. Walton complained that the ongoing investigation of McCabe may have been a smoke screen to stall the case demanding the documents. And he says, shouldn't I know whether the wool was being pulled over my eyes? I do have concerns about whether I was being manipulated into stopping this case from moving forward. For the past year or so, the Department of Justice claimed that they couldn't hand off the FOIA records because of their ongoing criminal investigation into McCabe. About two months ago, it seemed the Department of Justice was on the verge

of inditing him, but that did not happen. And requests made by McCabe's lawyers have gone ignored. This past Wednesday, Department of Justice said they would no longer block the documents in the FOIA case, but remained vague about the criminal investigation part. And when the judge pressured the Department of Justice to clarify, they were extremely ambiguous about it. Saying, quote, obviously, you know that time has passed. There's various proceedings the government has to consider and various interests the government has to consider.

The judge then ordered a closed-door exparte hearing with this asshole after which no one indicated what went down, but the judge ordered the Department of Justice to start producing the documents in the FOIA case. As of Thursday, McCabe says he's got no definitive answer about the state of the criminal probe. He told me personally, don't spike the football yet. But ultimately, the judge said you had until November 15th to charge McCabe or release the documents, and they're going with releasing the documents.

So. How much time and money and energy was fucking wasted on this? Oh, so much. God. There's so much going on in the Department of Justice with the investigation and the investigation, all the Inspector General bullshit reports on the investigation in the Mueller probe, the FISA Inspector General thing, all of this

stuff, and these sort of bullshit. And this could have even been like, we've always said, maybe the grand jury was there and they didn't come back with an indictment. And that's the end of it. And so they're not going to indictment. And that's the end of it. And so they're not going to indict him. But maybe it was like Walton was fearing, Judge Walton was fearing. This was all just a ruse to prevent those documents from coming out as long as possible, delay tactics, which are their only defense these days. And so he's thinking maybe they made up the fact that they were criminally investigating

McCabe to prevent these documents from coming out, but they're coming out. So that's what's happening in M.I. DOJ might have just been like, all right, we delayed it as long as we could. Do we have a definitive release date for these documents? Uh-uh, no, not yet, but they've been ordered to release them. And we still don't have the answer as to whether or not they are going to drop the case against McCabe. McCabe says he's waiting for the call. He'll gladly accept it.

What fucking case? We, of course. I mean, I've always said, look, even if they did charge them, it's not going to hold up. And that would be, it would be really not a wise decision for Jesse Liu, who's the US attorney to make that case. It's not a good case. Yeah, to your point, Amanda, just about how this is such a waste, right? It's like a waste of taxpayer dollars and time and resources. This is an actual waste. And then meanwhile, we have Republicans right now

on the House Intelligence Committee that are saying, for Ukraine gate, it was okay to withhold the aid because we needed to make sure that our heart and tax dollars were going to the right spot. So it's just, it's so, it's such a blatant hypocrisy. Yep. And also illegal, according to the State Department Office of General Counsel. Alright, we've got more show. Stick around for hot notes. We'll be right back. Hey, this is A.G. and we want to thank Noom for supporting Molar Shirod. Sticking to a weight loss plan can be hard, and there are so many new FAD diets now. There's fasting and paleo and kale.

Oh, where you can only eat kale. There's keto, a herd of a pito, where you only eat peat moss. It's supposed to be very bad for you. I'm kidding. Personally, I don't want to keep bouncing from one fat diet to another, so I'm trying something different, called NUME. With NUME, you stop the yo-yo dieting and start learning how to lose weight for good. Take their easy 30 second online evaluation to see how much weight you can lose, and keep

off by recognizing the habits blocking your success and building new strategies to have real lifelong results. With NUME, you'll have a personalized trainer. Your goal specialist is a behavioral change professional, you get a nutritional expert, a fitness trainer, all in one. Nume puts weight loss in the palm of your hand. It's on your phone whenever you need it. Makes food tracking easy with one of the biggest food databases available.

Plus, you get all the support from the Nume community, or as I call it, the Nume community. With group discussions, with fellow members to keep you encouraged. Nume is designed for results. It's out with the old habits and in with the news. Sign up for your trial today at numnoom.com slash AG. What do you have to lose?

Visit num.com slash AG to start your trial today. Again, that's num.com slash AG. Start losing weight for good. All right, welcome back. Lookin' awesome. Hot notes. See me see me see me see me. All right, welcome back time for Hot Notes. Jordan, what do you have for us today? It is Stephen Miller shit.

Yeah, he is, he is the absolute worst and a report that was published by the Southern Poverty Law Center on Tuesday detailed further, the extensive Trump's top immigration advisors, Stephen Miller's white nationalist beliefs, just straight up white nationalism. The report takes from over 900 emails that Miller exchanged with by her scent of bright bar between 2015 and 2016. So right, obviously, up until Trump was getting elected,

the emails really show his fixation with the concept of, I'm not calling it a concept. It's a conspiracy theory called white genocide, which is obviously not a thing and just purely exists as a concept to convince people to allow horrifically racist acts and policies to take place in this country. It is not a thing. White genocide is not a thing. If you hear anybody say that that please for the love of God

Call them out and talk to them about how fucked up that is and ask for any proof whatsoever that that is a thing that exists And they will not be able to because it does not he was also very focused on limiting non-white immigration as much as possible in these emails too So that directly leads right into Trump's policies, obviously. And the White House's response to this report, guess what? It is awful. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that the SPLC, that's again, the Southern Poverty Law Center, they said, SPLC is, quote, an utterly discredited, long debunked far left smear organization." And quote, Yeah, yeah, that's what she said Southern poverty loss on the Southern

poverty loss center. That's what she said. It's the furthest thing from the truth. And this pissed me off reading this so much because I know the incredible work that they do and have done over time. So if it's okay really quick, I wanted to read from Wikipedia a couple of the really important cases that they've done. I mean they're continuously doing these but this is an example. So in 1987, SPLC won a case against the United Clans of America for the lynching of Michael Donald, a black teenager and mobile Alabama. The SPLC used an unprecedented legal strategy of holding an organization responsible for the crimes of individual members to help produce a $7 million judgment for the victim's mother,

the verdict forced United Clans of America into bankruptcy. So that's, it doesn't get more legitimate than that making really important restitutions, honestly, and active violence and racial violence that unfortunately, obviously can't really be made up for, but their dedication to trying to get as much fiscal remedies as they can for the families affected by these crimes and the individuals affected by these crimes is demonstrated over the last like 50 years. I think they've been around for 48 years now. So for her to say that they're an illegitimate organization is just so

offensive. And the fact that it's just going to be something that kind of goes over a lot of people's heads really fucking sucks. Yeah. Well, I suppose if you are a dictator, you will disparage the one group that is best at tracking hate crimes. Yeah. Yeah. It's now Congressman and woman are calling on Stephen Miller to resign. I guess if they didn't have a reason to do it before, this is more of an explosive reason. If you can pair that call for resignation with the proof of these emails and the truly racially violent speech and ideas that he continues to advocate for. So Stephen Miller resigned, you fucking suck, everybody hates you. That's the end of that.

I like it. I like your ending. Yeah. I like your conclusion. Thank you. Thank you for that reporting. Just a little quick interesting thing here that popped up across Modesque. Donald Trump is now about an hour ago. More witness intimidation. He says on Twitter, tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read both transcripts

to the presidential calls and see that just released statement from Ukraine, then she should meet with other never-trumpers who I don't know, mostly even never heard of, and work out a better presidential attack. So she's calling out, continues to call out witnesses by name. I can't imagine that anybody in the White House has advised him to keep doing this. But that's what's happening with that.

And my hot note today is a stunning revelation this week from the New York Times that I'm surprised isn't getting any traction in the mainstream media, likely because we're impeaching the president. I can't really blame everybody. And Manafort is already in prison and this is about him. The headline means Manafort's 2016 gambit, a back channel from Trump camp to labor. According to three people close to the Trump campaign, Manafort sought to open a background of back channels, excuse me, to the AF-CIO that typically backs Democrats, big union, in

an effort to get them to scale back their get out the vote efforts in Michigan and Wisconsin specifically. Manafort enlisted a go-between with high ranking officials within the AFL-CIO to suggest a mutually beneficial relationship. The bribe, as we like to call them here, is that Trump would take it easy on his supportive right to work laws in exchange for the AFL-CIO to take it easy on encouraging their members to vote. Oh my God, that's disgusting. Isn't that horrifying? The Intermediate's name is Stephen Brown, and he worked for Manafort in Ukraine in 2013 because of course he did.

And he was in touch with a guy named Don Slamon from the Union, from AFLCIO. Slamon initially denied contact with Brown, but then later had to admit he'd communicated with him repeatedly during the 2016 election when email surfaced. When asked about it, Slamon denied discussions, discussing such a deal, saying, quote, he wanted to meet with me. Brown wanted to meet with me. I never did. I responded to him because we regularly communicate with Democrats and Republicans. Our focus is pro-labor, not party identification. Those con artists, these con artists, were delusional if they believed the labor movement would enter into such a deal. Mr. Brown's involvement continued after the campaign, after Trump won. In January 2017, Richard Trumpka, the Federation's president, met with Mr. Trump, then President-elect,

in New York. And Mr. Brown helped set that meeting up according to officials on both sides and actually ascorted Trump cut upstairs from the Trump Tower lobby himself. Interesting note, Mr. Brown is now in prison. No, God. For a scheme to defraud investors in film productions. Wow.

He could not be reached. His two most recent lawyers said they could not speak for him. Hey, man, what a career BFF to what? There's a lot of film production money laundering scheme shit going on like with the DT and the not the I see thing but the Jolo and Mnuchin own the production company and had to sell that to one of his I don't know. I mean Trump comes from a TV background

Yeah, that is true, but also aside from Mr. Brown. It's a really good money laundering cover. Yes. Film production. Totally. Yeah. If you can slap your name onto some production company or whatever, I mean, that's like the amount of money that's coming through.

Those organizations is insane. But on top of the movie industry, there's also just, yeah, people I like made a reference to Matthew Whitaker, but just fraudulent behavior, just lying to consumers in one way or another, misusing funds in one way or another. Although for something like this, it seems like everybody's kind of in on it, and it doesn't really, it's not as much as a effect on the consumer as it is, an effect on our democracy and legal system in general. But yeah. And in bribery, it's really hard to prove on a criminal level, not a impeachment level,

but on a criminal level. So I don't think we're gonna see any super-seating man if we're in indictments for this. Plus, he's pretty much in jail till he dies. So I don't know that the, you know, they wouldn't, like prosecutors wouldn't take up the other counts that they were hung on. And they could have easily retried those in one.

And so I don't think they'll spend the taxpayers money to look into this any further either but it is a really gross story. Yeah. To try to suppress the union vote in Michigan and Wisconsin where you know Trump basically won the election with the handful of votes. I mean this this this is dirty but it rings true to the Brett to the wider Republican strategy of suppressing the vote. That's why they gerrymandered.

That's why they that's all they do. That's all they do. Republican strategy of suppressing the vote. That's why they gerrymander. That's why they, that's all they do. Gerrymander, suppress the vote, take away people's ideas, move your voting places, make it hard. Yes, or have extremely harsh sentencing for nonviolent crimes and then people lose their right to vote and it's just like, or have the Russians tweet out the wrong election there that you can vote for Hillary by text. I mean, there's a million way they

try to separate their tactic is just voter suppression because they know if it was one person one vote, they would lose everything. Yeah. And the more people who vote, the better Democrats do. Yeah. And also on top of that Biden, who he clearly sees or saw as his biggest political opponent is super, super big with labor rights communities. And so going after AFL, CIO directly seems like a direct attack, honestly, on Biden's constituency. Well, this is 2016 though. Yeah, but just in general though, I mean assuming they're gonna run for re-election, right?

If you can get in with that organization. Absolutely, yeah. Absolutely. And I think also one of the focuses here was they knew that Hillary didn't go to Michigan and Wisconsin. And so, oh, vulnerable vulnerabilities. And also, by the way, Kalimnik and the KGB, here's some polling data from those states.

Yeah, that is true about her campaign though. I mean, there was an absence of her being on the front line since some of these like working communities in the places where he won. Because presumably she was going to clean the floor. Exactly. Okay, so sorry, this happened in 2016, how much before the election? This was leading up to the election.

This was trying to take votes away from Hillary. So you're right, he's not having Biden in mind, he's just having Hillary in mind. Hillary is not particularly a super popular person though with like labor rights or excitedness. No, that is not as much as Joe Biden is. Yeah, just aside from being in so crat in general, but they should watch for that kind of backdoor union dealing in this election, specifically, particularly if Biden remains a front runner.

Yeah. And also Bernie and more. I mean, all the democratic nominees are pretty much super pro. I mean, that's where the unions generally vote. And to go into these particular states and have them suppress the get out the vote initiatives in exchange for being going easy on right to work laws, I mean, I guess that's a policy exchange, but you know, but it is, it is an interference in the election. It is, I, you know, I don't know if how illegal it is. I just know it's pretty dirty.

Yeah, that's a good question. If there isn't some sort of language that lays out how that's not okay, there should be. Yeah. But like I can go and I can, if I were, you know, a campaign chairman for a Democrat, I could go to the FLCIO, have meetings and say, get out the vote because the more Union vote, more for Democrats.

But that's more of a, get out the vote tactic, not a voter suppression tactic. Exactly. I think the language around the law should be, look like exchanging things from money, well, that's a whole wider area. Anything that suppresses votes. Exactly. That's what I was going to say. So any policy should be written explicitly around how it is

not allowed or illegal to work with an organization to knowingly suppress votes. Right, and on top of that, using your client, your campaign funds to do so, because if he's paying Maniford to do that work, then isn't it conceivable that that could also, that should chalk up to some sort of, you're paying money to get someone

to help you suppress votes. Well, that's why he didn't pay man-of-fort technically for his work and it all came through packs that were, you know, short up by illegal foreign straw donations. I wondered if lawyers could do their thing and show that obviously that was money that was still going to him.

But on top, on top of that, we need to give the FEC some teeth. So the Feral Elections Commission, they're sort of just a... Right, what was that thing where they weren't going to be there to vote on something for a long time? I'm totally this is it. They don't have a quorum. They don't have a quorum right now.

They don't have enough people to even do anything. Thank you. Read in my mind. That's what I'm talking about. For sure. That is a big difference between living here and living in the places I've lived before. And granted, I mean, things have gotten a little more

corrupt in my home countries over the last few years. But misuse of election funds or campaign funds or any sort of funds corruption, I felt like smaller things were a way bigger deal. That's how it's situated. Exactly. But here when I got here, I was like, oh shit, okay. So it's a problem, but it's just out of control. Yeah.

Totally. Yeah, I'm remin' it. All right, are you all ready for sabotage? According to three US officials, Rudy Giuliani is being investigated by federal prosecutors for campaign finance violations, failing to register as a foreign agent, conspiracy to defraud the United States at bribery and extortion. And he also has a counterintelligence on the side, little side hustle for him in this gig economy, in the crime gig economy.

Oh, God. So knowing that, let's play the fantasy indictment league. Mm-hmm. I'm gonna be a candidate. No, it is gonna be a candidate. I'm a dick. And I'm a candidate. I'm gonna be a pilot.

Oh, they can't. It's gonna be okay. Just calm down. I can't calm down. I'm gonna be dead! Alright, before we get into our picks, before we get into the draft, we have some fun convictions this week, including Manafort's son-in-law, getting a Yo-Hi, Yo-Yo-Hi, I think, getting nine years for being an asshole. And of course Roger Stone was found guilty on all seven counts,

including Lion to Congress, sending a timely message, as I said, from the Mueller era to people testifying now in the impeachment hearings. Don't lie. His sentencing is February 6th. Again, we bet $7.9. You're at 10, Mandy, and you're at 4. But we also had a superseding indictment in the Concord Management case this week. Well, it didn't get a lot of news. I've read through it for when I can gather. It seems though this superseding indictment is to clarify the crime committed by Concord and Progoge and by funding the Internet Research Agency. So if you had a Russian or a Russian or a Randall Russian or Concord management on your team give yourself

a point. Nice. Alright now I forget who's turn it is. Did I go first in Boston? I believe you did go first in Boston. Damn it. You get to go first. I will take the notes. Yeah I think you did. I'm sure it's okay cool. Okay good because that'd be a very bad look for me. I think you're Giuliani. Yeah, fucker. Also Giuliani. No Can I pick Netanyahu? Sure. I know he's not interesting. Well, he's not you know, it's definitely not related to the more stuff. It's not related to Mueller stuff. Although Israel, you know what I can connect it in six degrees of Side group. Yeah, Mossad, Side group, Black, Cube, Xamal, Wikileaks, Nader, Netanyahu. But you're talking about his corruption. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if I was going to be the referee, I'd say that doesn't count.

Okay. All right. Then I'll write. I'm asking. I don't know. I mean, you created this entire project. That's true, but this is all yours. So you totally can do it. Okay, for no points. I bet he's gonna be indicted, but then for my points, I'm gonna pick a native. Perfect. There we go. Yeah, why waste a pick, you know?

Okay, because I could have gotten points for now, and yeah, he's totally getting indicted this week. Put some beans on it. How about this? Fresh beans. How about for this week? We say since the Netanyahu calls on the fence, we'll allow Netanyahu and the indictment like this week. What about that?

Well, because then everyone will pick them. Yeah. Half a point. I think it really should be Americans. I really do. Okay. Fair enough. I do. And that was a real long way around to get to Netanyahu.

So because like, yo, I wouldn't have counted. Manafort's son-in-law. I wouldn't have counted him. So Netanyahu, he shouldn't count either. But I'm going to just say beans on him being a dieted and a make-nader my first pick. OK. I'm going to do.

Tom Burke. Of course. Obviously. Jislin, for me. Nice. Nice. Well. I'm gonna go with Superseating Parnas. All right. Okay. Then I'm gonna go Super superseding Fruiman. He seems to be less co-operating.

That's who I meant. Yeah. But that was my bad. Yeah. Sorry. As I was saying it, I was like, I don't remember. But I'm just going to go with Parnas. Well then, can I do a plea deal?

Can I change it to a plea deal? Yeah. You can do a Parnas with a plea deal. Beautiful. I need some sort of pneumonic device in my head to keep that part is Put let's see who okay Freeman Freeman is less caught a fucker. Or fucker. Freeman. Yeah, Igor is less cooperative. There we go Cool, okay, so far it could change. Yeah It's your turn or I turn I people have to race so far. Yeah, okay cool.. So that's me. All right. Let's do AMI all right. I'm gonna go Trump org

and I will do Picker throwback you selected pecker I get one more you do have one more yes Do you have one more yes? Mmm. Coagia. You know, we haven't talked about a sign in, and Gilein Jislein, but, man, we got to talk about that this week. I have some feelings.

Okay. Yeah. We'll get into it later. Okay. Sounds good. Yeah, yeah. It's a whole, did you guys see the interview with the print sander this week? Oh, yeah. He's like, girl, I wasn't, I wasn't hang, I don't know.

I didn't. We're gonna talk about that on Tuesday's Beans. Yeah, yeah, cool. For sure, it's coming up in the script. All right, we will be right back with the interview. It's tick around. Hey everybody, when I was a kid, my folks would make home movies on the camcorder

of all of our family trips and vacations. We would have negatives that my dad would do slide shows with. We'd go camping. Some of the most fun times we've ever had. And I wanted to dig up these old analog tapes and negatives and photos and see if they could still be watched or restored and I discovered the answer was Legacy Box. Legacy Box is the world's largest most trusted digitizer of home movies and photos with over a decade of experience and hundreds of thousands of families that have trusted Legacy

Box to preserve their memories. Legacy Box is by far the best and easiest way to convert all your old analog media to DVD, thumb drive, or even convenient digital downloads so you can share with friends and family. The process is super easy, you go online, purchase the box that you need, they send you Legacy Box kit, you fill it with all your media, slap on the prepaid mailing label, and send it back. And in a couple weeks, Legacy Box sends you back the originals plus perfectly preserved digital copies, ready to watch, share, and relive. Our past shapes are future, so preserve your precious memories and protect them for future generations with Legacy Box.

It also makes an amazing holiday gift. Get started preserving your past today, go to LegacyBox.com slash AG to get 40% off your first order. It's like the biggest savings I've ever seen. Save your time and memories, go to LegacyBox.com slash AG and save 40% today. You'll be glad you did. Joining us now is author lawyer NBC News opinion contributor and documenter librarian of the Trump impeachment Terry Kanefield. Terry thanks for being on Mueller she wrote. Oh, glad to be here. Thank you. Yeah. I've been following your work for a while.

It's incredibly informative. And just last week when we were in Boston during the Q&A for one of our live shows, one of our listeners said, we need to have Terry Cainfield on the show. And I was like, you know, that's a really brilliant idea. So here we are. One week into the public facing impeachment hearings. And I was hoping for those who might not be familiar with your work, if you could talk a little bit about what you're doing during this impeachment process. Well, a few months ago, I was asked to be on a panel talking about the constitutional

aspects of impeachment. And so I did a little research and just a general background in law and constitutional law. So as I was preparing for this panel, the impeachment story broke. And that was when it was clear that there was going to be the whistleblower information came out. And so I was sort of on it from the beginning. And I started just basically reading every document that came out. And I should say as an appellate lawyer, what appellate lawyer has been most of their time doing is reading court transcripts and writing little summaries of them, which we call statements of facts.

And so I've basically been reading depositions and transcripts for 15 years and writing up summaries. So it was sort of natural to, I guess, launch in. That's really amazing. I mean, because I haven't really started, I don't have a background until probably about two and a half years ago of reading court documents and transcripts and indictments and charging documents. I'm into it now, but with your 15 plus years of experience, reading them and summarizing them,

I think that that just comes in very handy when trying to actually reduce these 400, 300-page transcripts down to consumable pieces of media, because that's sort of what this entire public facing hearing is about, isn't it, is to get Americans on board with at least understanding the aspects of the case, whether they agree with or not is obviously up to them, but we need to boil it down into these understandable bites.

And I think that that's, you know, where one of your strengths, your major strength lies, right? Well, it turned out to be something that I put public. Basically, I started keeping notes myself because I can't understand it unless I take my notes. And yes, I color code my notes. And so I started integrating all of the evidence where I was evaluating and only using, you know,

sworn testimony, trying to do it as, you know, very solid work for myself. And then actually I got the idea just to make my notes public. And so I actually updated in real time, my husband is pretty good with websites, and so I joke that he magically turned all of my notes into a WordPress site. And so I can't into a WordPress site. And so I can't read somebody else's outlines or read somebody else's opinions and summaries. I have to do it myself. And that's probably law school,

just sort of what, there are a lot of summaries out there, a lot of people commenting on what's in the depositions. And I find I can't absorb that. I have to do it myself. It's like taking your own notes in a lecture. I totally feel that because I generally, the way that I get a grasp on everything and integrate all of the different data points is by taking my own notes and reporting on it and talking to others about it. I'm one of those learners where if I tell someone else about it, then I learn and then I get little flags of my own ideas and my own opinions. And so I think that that really speaks to me. And so I

think that therefore, you know, the way that you summarize these massive amounts of data will also speak to our listeners. So can you, I don't know, it's so much, I don't even know where to start, but what are some of the highlights of what you've come up with so far? Well, one of the things that I would say is, there's an overview.

And the overview is just simply, there was a coordinated shake down. Shake down is, I'm avoiding legal terms here. There was a shake down. So Donald Trump decided it looks like the decision was made at the end of 2018, which I think is not a coincidence because there was a bit of a bloodbath in the election. And at the end of 2018, after the midterms, it was quite clear that without doing something sort of desperate, you would not win re-election. And so the plan got started at the end of 2018 and it was just very simply a plan to

pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation of the Biden's and so I think what what happened If my conclusion after Cassetta going through also I should add that my area of expertise in law is criminal defense I did criminal defense appeals. And most everybody out there right now are their prosecutors. But I come into it from a defense viewpoint. And so I tend to read this as what's

going on with these criminal defendants, basically. And it looks to me like in a nutshell, Donald Trump and Giuliani overreached that they came up with this plan that sounds simple. Well we'll just get Ukraine to open an investigation. But the problem is that to execute this requires involving multiple levers of government. And lots of people had to know what was going on, even though they tried to keep it in a narrow channel.

And so what they ended up with are witnesses all over the place. So that's basically what seemed to them, I'm sure like a fairly simple thing to do. And I don't doubt that they have, that Donald Trump during, you know, the first few years of his presidency did this. He did leverage government and foreign policy for his own benefit, but he never got caught. And also speaking experience working with criminal defendants, is that very often people do get caught when they overreach

or they push their luck or they act from desperation. And so what we see happening are all of these witnesses coming out because you can't do this kind of a shakedown of a foreign government without lots and lots of people getting a whiff of what's happening. Yeah, that's very true. And obviously this is an impeachment proceeding and not a federal criminal proceeding,

but from a criminal defense perspective, does the fact that Trump went through the Mueller investigation sort of poke holes in a defense, because I feel like maybe their only defense could have been lack of corrupt intent or not having willful knowledge of the defense, too dumb to crime, basically, which is why junior wasn't prosecuted for the June 9th, 2016 meeting.

Does the fact that Trump and his associates having gone through the Mueller investigation sort of diminish that defense? Well, I don't think there is a defense here that they were ignorant of what they were doing. I mean, I think they're trying for different sorts of defenses. When they say, well, I haven't heard anybody say that,

I've heard him say there's nothing wrong with what they did, and I think they can believe that. So no, I'm not seeing that as a defense, because Trump believed that he did nothing wrong in the Mueller probe. He believed he did nothing wrong. And I think that he believes that he has the right to do what he did. And so I don't think we can say, well, he should have known from Mueller that he shouldn't

be meddling. I think it's more, I'm not sure intent is even an issue here. I think it's more, I think what they tried to do for a defense was isolate the president. You could see that coming out as a defense. Not that he didn't do it. Not that that that that Sanland was sort of a free agent and that people were acting without Donald Trump's orders. Well, that phone call overheard by David Holmes and a couple other folks in outdoor terrorists in Kiev

sort of blows a hole in that defense. Right, so exactly. So that's what we see. Initially, the defense was, well, it's all hearsay. And that the president actually, nobody ever has any record of the president saying anything. And of course, it's really ridiculous because the reason we don't have the evidence is because he's preventing people from coming forward. But that aside, I think the defense was initially

that nobody could pin anything on the president. And that's actually, you see this a lot. This is what you see in sort of mobster cases. you see this in Mafia kind of cases where we all know how the game goes right the top the person at the top gives the orders to one person without witnesses and that person gives the order to somebody else without witnesses and I had a at a client once it was called a mule where he got paid $20,000 to take a package of I think it was cocaine, from one place to another. But there was a chain above him so that he only got the orders from one person who got the orders from someone else. And it's very easy to insulate the person at the top, which is you make one link of the chain disappear. That seems to be what's happening with Pence as well.

I feel like he's been very insulated. And then that also allows these kind of mafia types to use the defense, you know, here's say third hand, fourth hand information. And so, you know, we're back kind of, you know, with that's just not the case anymore. But, and we've always wondered this from, and I'd be interested for your opinion from a criminal defense point of view

How corrupt intent I know that corrupt intent isn't really even a possible defense in this case, but how how can you Even look at corrupt intent and apply it to people who truly believe they aren't breaking the law I mean, I don't see how you could possibly have corrupt intent if you're so privileged, you think you're above it. Well, okay, so this is, let's talk about something, we call it mens-raya, which is a criminal state of mind. So, basically, what I'm going to tell you is a lot more complicated than that. So, you can't be convicted of a crime without something called mens-raya. There's two parts of a crime. There is actress raya, which is the act itself,

and then there's mensraya, which is the intent. And so both of these things are present in all crimes with the exception of certain crimes that don't require an intent. Like, we'll get into the exceptions. But almost all crimes have a mensraya. And a mensraya doesn't necessarily mean that you know it's illegal or you know It's a crime you just have to know what you're doing. Oh, I see so it's so each crime so I think it's more complicated

Each crime has a mens rare so if you look up any crime like it let's say you look up the federal extortion Statute then what you're gonna find in there is a is a level of the mens rare Which is what level does the person have to have. So do they have to have an intent to commit this particular act? Do they have to have? Do they have to? In some cases, you have to know it's wrong. In some cases, you only have to know that you are committing

this act and that you have an intent to. And so it doesn't. So that's why I don't think intent or criminal intent is, is really a defense here. It's also not a defense because in impeachment and in removal, we don't have the criminal standards. So it's also completely, so, but they are using sort of defenses. completely. But they are using sort of defenses. But it's really important to steer this away from the kinds of defenses that you talk about, or the standards that you talk about in a criminal trial. So in a criminal trial, it's really, really hard because you have to prove the men's ray of beyond a reasonable doubt. And we have these really high standards because

we don't want to be putting people in jail or taking their lives without a very high standard. And in an impeachment and a removal, really, he's losing his job as president. Yeah, and I thought that's why it was really interesting that this week Nancy Pelosi came out using the term bribery over and over again. I had advocated for this on social media, talked about it on the podcast saying, we need to get away from quid pro quo, we need to talk about bribery.

Although crimes, federal crimes, beyond a reasonable doubt, are not required in impeachment hearings, I think that what happened here, this shakedown, and I know we were trying to avoid using legal terms, could amount to bribery. I've talked to a lot of former federal prosecutors who say that they could easily get a bribery charge on here, or at least, you know, bring it, whether they could obtain it and maintain it is a different story. But I was wondering what your thought about her moving from quid pro quo to bribery was because I likened it to Mueller trying to move away from the word

collusion and move toward the word conspiracy. Now he was obviously doing a criminal investigation, and this is an impeachment. As I said, we need to draw those clear lines. So I'm wondering how what you thought of her use of the term bribery. Well, I was surprised. I did notice that when you listen to her full quote, she does couch it. She still talks mostly about abuse of power. And about, you know, she's cloaking it in that abuse of power language, but she did throw out bribery. And there are two things that I want to say. The first is that bribery is mentioned in the Constitution as an impeachable defense. It's one of the few, we have high crimes misdemeanors, you know, trees and in bribery. So bribery is there. And this is really important.

Well, and that's why I was arguing for it. I didn't mean to interrupt you real quick, but I just want to like, that's why I was arguing for the term bribery. It's right there in article one, right? Right, but here's, okay, so there's bribery as we understand it now in the federal criminal code. And there's bribery as it was understood at the time of the founders. And so I think that, I'm surprised, I'm surprised she did that.

But the problem right now with talking about bribery is that the Supreme Court in recent cases, recent meaning that last 10, 10, 15 years, in recent cases, the Supreme Court has made it very, very difficult to get a conviction on bribery. So that's why I think your prosecutors are saying they could charge it, but getting a conviction is very difficult because of the way that the Supreme Court has sort of defined the elements of bribery. So when you talk about what's impeachable, when you talk about crimes that are impeachable,

what we have to remember is that the federal criminal code, as we understand it now, did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, and they really would not have known or predicted that we would have the kind of federal criminal code that we have because at the time they probably weren't thinking that crimes were going to be federal. Crimes were really basically defined by in the states. Right. And when Ben Franklin was arguing at the Constitutional Convention about including impeachment in the Constitution, his about including impeachment in the Constitution.

His example was, if the president accepted a bribe from a foreign country to help him win an election. That was the example that they used, which is exactly what's happening here, and you're right, they weren't talking about federal criminal law. Which is very difficult. So, as a criminal defense lawyer, I can tell you that it's become very it is very difficult to convict somebody of a crime. And the reason and that's what our defense is all the time. We're always saying, but have you met the standard of proof, right?

And so it's very difficult because because we don't want to be putting people in jail without this high standard. But for losing your job as president, the criminal standards aren't there. Also, the federal criminal code with the way that the Supreme Court has tightened up the requirements for bribery weren't there. They met something at the time very specific and they met bribery almost synonymous with abuse of power. So I would expect that when we see the articles of impeachment, they will be framed as abuse of power. If there is, if the word bribery, I'll go ahead and make a prediction.

I usually don't make predictions, but I would say if the word bribery appears, it's in one of the articles and it's not how the framing will be done. And if it does if here, it will be clear how they're using the word bribery. Yeah, I think you're right. And I think I that's also sort of what we've been predicting. We we love predicting things. Uh, is that, you know, they'll be an abuse of power article and and bribery could be subsumed under that article. Like there would be an obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress article and witness intimidation would be under under that.

Uh, for example, for what he to, you know, was tweeting at Marie or Masha Yavanovitch when when she was testifying this week. And then also you could mix in all of the work Mueller did on the obstruction of justice, which actually I thought in reading his report, he met the criminal standards for several of those, but it wouldn't be outlined like that. I agree with you. On that, I think it would be subsumed in broader articles. Or defined, you know, how it is that they're defining it.

But yeah, I think we're all doing that right. We're all, sometimes I'll start writing the articles of impeachment in my head. I'll admit it. But you know, it's clear that there will, I would expect also that at least one of the articles of impeachment is going to be so clear that it's going to be very difficult for these Republicans. I think they will also vote to a quit, a lot of them will vote to a quit. But I would expect something, even like remember when shift in the last testimony when he was talking about the whistleblower, they went on and on about he had promised the whistleblower would testify. And then when he had his chance to speak, he gave

some really startling quotations from the president that the president called for execution and death penalty and that really the whistleblower's life was threatened. And so when I write the articles of impeachment in my head, what I do is I separate that out and I make it one article that the endangering of lives of citizens as part of a witness tampering or witness intimidation. And that specifically threatening the life of a citizen who might be a witness. Not to mention, I mean, you know, back in those days, which was only

a few weeks ago, when Schiff was talking about having the whistleblower testify, we didn't have 15 other corroborating witnesses making the testimony of the whistleblower moot. But he didn't even go there. He said, look, the president threatened to friggin' execute this guy. And I take it, I take it. I mean, because that's much more powerful that he's threatening life. So if I were writing the articles of meet-men, I'd say someone must have hired me to do it over there.

I would take that as an article. I would separate it out so that it has to have a separate vote so that you have to force the republican senators to say i a quit the president can threatened alive so they vote on each individual article in the uh... okay well then that makes it uh... very different a very different sort of strategy like you said because

ultimately i agree with you i think they they'll acquit them in the Senate, unless the sentiment among Americans is that 70% plus percent, maybe 60 or 70% plus percent want his removal, but to hold, I thought it was just to hold him accountable for whether he did any of it or none of it, like a pass fail, but if they go by article, then yeah, it would none of it, like a pass fail, but if they go by article, then yeah, it would be really important and especially, you know, helpful if you're a Democrat in the elections

in 2020. So, even if they do it as a yes-no vote, so that you can't vote individually for the articles, which could make sense. I mean, actually, that doesn't make sense to me, but let's suppose they did it. Let's suppose they have like, we have five articles of impeachment, and all you get to do is say thumbs up or thumbs down. So it works the same way, right? Because if one of the articles of impeachment is something really obvious, you know, really

outrageous, and where it's very difficult, you know, by the way, sort of backing up, remember at the beginning the defense was, but there was no crime. Okay, so when shift went on about this witness intimidation, I'm thinking, oh my gosh, there's a crime. So you don't have to talk about crimes in each article, but if you've got witness intimidation, witness tampering, in plain sight, threatening the life of not just a potential witness, but a whistleblower.

If you have that as a separate article, that's obviously a crime. And so that's the, remember, that was one of the initial defenses that there was no crime. So if they're broken out and they do a thumb-suffer-thumbs down. I think it still works the same way, although it gives them a little bit of cover. They can say, well, it gives them a little bit of cover because they can say, well, I thought, you know, four of the five or so ridiculous, I couldn't vote. But on the other hand, you only need one article of impeachment.

He only has to be guilty of, you know, found guilty of one of the articles of impeachment. He only has to be guilty of one of the articles of impeachment. So it hadn't actually occurred to me that they would do a thumbs up thumbs down on all of them. That's a good question. We haven't had that many impeachments to go back and look to see how it's done, but now I'm going to go back and see. But you're right. I mean, even if they give a thumbs down to the whole thing, then you can say, all right, even article two where He lied to Mueller Which I think I I personally want them to include in the articles of impeachment because if we get those grand jury materials and he lied about

You know, Stone unfortunately he say I did not recall but I think that's still an impeachable offense But either way yeah, you you would put a thumbs down to all of them and you could pick one out and say this, you said no to this, and we're going to vote you out in 2024. Personally, I think the president threatening the life of a citizen who's also a potential witness. I think that is far more egregious than lying under oath. I mean, I know that's because people lie when they're scared. Oh, agreed.

I was just giving another example of a potential article that could be obvious. I mean, they're all gonna be pretty obvious, but you know. Right, so I think the separating out an article like that, I think it would be pretty incredible. And so, incredible in the sense that really putting people on the spot, how are they going to vote, what's it going to look like? And we still have a lot more coming out.

Yeah, new information all day. We had this new witness intimidation real time on TV on Friday during Maria Vanovich. We had the Bill Taylor testifies him totally for previously unknown information about the phone call between Sonland and Trump and Keeve. It's like it there's more and I think there will be more and so it's gonna be a really fascinating historical process that we're witnessing. Do I have time to tell you a quick autobiographical detail? Of course. I decided to go to law school during the Clinton impeachment.

Oh, really? I did. So I had been teaching college English, and I was teaching argumentation. I was teaching rhetoric. And I was so captivated by the Senate trial that I was listening to it. That's when I had my earphones with a radio.

And I would listen to it right up to the time I went into the classroom. And then I would write the arguments that they were using and have the class sort of analyze these arguments. And that was when I decided to go to law school. So I just wanted to tie that back to the beginning. And actually, what I remember at the time

was wishing I understood more about the constitutional issues with that impeachment and senate trial. And so here I am. What is it? 20 years later, a little more than 20 years later. Now, talking to people, helping people understand the constitutional issues of another impeachment. The amazing, right? That's pretty amazing. I was born 26 days before they voted on articles of impeachment for Nixon, so I have a weird tie with impeachment in my life. So you plot that tie. I remember I remember Nixon designing, but I was I was 12 or 13, but no, that wasn't yet sort of aware of what was going on. Yeah, I knew it was a big deal. I knew it was a big deal, but I was older than you,

but still not quite old enough to engage much. Yeah, I was definitely not old enough to engage. But you were born right there, right? Yeah, but yet here we are. Well, thank you so much for joining us today. Can you tell our listeners where they can find your public-facing notes and everything that you're documenting? Well, thank you so much for joining us today. Can you tell our listeners where they can find your public facing notes and everything that you're documenting?

Well, I'm on Twitter. And so, and I also, actually, this is also my, you know, my husband putting things up for me. He decided I was doing threads. I started doing threads about a year and a half ago. And he didn't want me to depend on any social media platform. So he would put up a blog and all of my threads also go onto a blog.

So people sometimes like the blog better than the threads. But I'm on Twitter as Terry Cainfield. I have a blog also under my name. And then to find my notes on impeachment, I think my website's called impeachment from, but you can get a link from my Twitter handle or my blog. Well, thank you so much. Thank you for these insights.

It was really great to talk to you. The listener that suggested you come on the show was absolutely correct. I'm really glad that you joined us today. Everyone author, lawyer, NBC News, opinion contributor, and expert in Trump impeachment Terry Cainfield. Terry, thanks again for joining us today.

All right, everybody, that is our show. It was a long one. It was the impeachment mega-so. Thank you for hanging in, and thank you for hanging out. I absolutely love reading the news to you guys. Y'all. And really, it's been helping me get through this week. It's been kind of a tough week.

I just want to give you a quick update. My husband's doing better. He's walking and he's recovering from his surgery. And so thank you, thank you, for all of the photos of podcasts and pod dogs and support and love and good thoughts and stuff. I really appreciate it. And thank you for just being there and listening because this really does help me immensely.

So thank you for that. Any final thoughts for you guys? Yes. If you have the money to spare in contradiction to Stephen Miller's fuckheadedness, don't need to SPLC. Ah, good one. Yeah, monthly donation.

Donation is... I love it. Yes. Just a next reminder to take care of yourselves this week. I think that's my focus for this week. Aside from like getting my work done, it's just taking care of myself, making my brain feel nice.

Good. Yeah, so do that for yourselves too. And we're bringing on another team member to the team to help with that too. So thank you all for being patrons because that allows us to do that. And we really appreciate it. And we love growing the team.

And thank you. I just thank you so much for doing that. You get a bunch of stuff as a patron but honestly that it just helps us out so much. I really appreciate it. So that's it. Everyone take care of yourselves, take care of each other. I've been AG. I've been 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 MalushieRove.com. Not even sorry. And audiences like the shows too much, too much. And now they might be giants who are playing their breakthrough album, all of it. And they still have time for other songs. They're fooling around. Who can stop? They might be giants and their liberal rocket gender. Who? No one.

Disadvantaged pay for was somebody else's money. M-S-W Media. M-S-W-Media.