Jack - Kukes, Kavanaugh, and the Kremlin (feat. Michael McFaul and Natasha Bertrand)

Episode Date: October 1, 2018

Ep #48 - Joining us this week is Michael McFaul (professor) and Natasha Bertrand (staff writer for The Atlantic). Natasha discusses the Gamble v U.S. case with AG. Plus, Jaleesa covers what really went down in the Seychelles, Jordan gives an update on Trump violating the emoluments clause, and we all cover the Kavanaugh news. Enjoy! Register to Vote HERE: vote.gov  Trigger Warning: This episode contains stories and descriptions of sexual assault. Please be advised.

Welcome to Teacher Quit Talk, I'm Misredacted, and I'm Mrs. Frazzled. Every week we explore the teacher exodus to find out what if anything could get these educators back in the classroom. We've all had our moments where we thought, what the hell am I doing here? From burnout to bureaucracy to soul-sucking stressors and creative dead ends, from recognizing when it was time to go, to navigating feelings of guilt and regret afterwards, we're here to cut off a gaslighting and get real about what it means to leave teaching. We've got insights from former teachers from all over the country who have seen it all. So get ready to be disturbed and join us on Teacher Quit Talk to laugh through the pain

of the U.S. education system. We'll see you there. Hey, Mother Junkies, we would like to thank Third Love for supporting Muller She-Route. Third Love knows there's a perfect broth for everyone and right now they're offering our listeners 15% off their first order. Just head to thirdlove.com slash AG financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what I said.

That's obviously what our position is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time, a two, and that campaign, and I didn't have, not have communications with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin for having 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 professional capitalist. Hello and welcome to Mollarshi Road. I'm your anonymous host, A.G. I use Asutinim because I work for Trump and I don't want to violate the Hatch Act. And as we know, he's purging non-loyalists in the government.

So, trying to keep below profile. With me, as always, is Julie Sojanson. Hello. And Jordan Coburn. Hello. Glad to have you back, Jordan. Thank you. Good to be back.

Tits McGee was on vacation. We had listeners right in saying that they missed your F-bombs. Aw, they missed everything about you, dude. Like everyone's probably just be like, uh, okay, we need that back. And of course, that's my memorable contribution. I'm so grateful. I'm so grateful. There's so much more. More than just your F-bombs

short. We have a big show for you this week. Jalice is going to cover what really went down in the Seychelles. Jordan will be giving us an update on the Congressional Democrats lawsuit alleging Trump's violating the emoluments clause. And we're all going to cover the Kavanaugh news that we find relevant in a special segment today dedicated to the SCOTUS. We're going to have a special segment for it, so we're kind of mixing things up. This week we have a few special guests, including staff writer for the Atlantic Natasha Bertrand, to talk to us about the Rosenstein Fire Drill we had this week, and her story about a Supreme Court case that could give Trump the ability to pardon state crimes.

And we're going to shake things up with esteemed professor and former ambassador to Russia under Obama, Michael McFall. And that's going to be my hot note this week, because the interview that I had with him. I have one correction. A fellow from Alaska had told us, please don't flood Murkowski's office with calls so that actual Alaskans can get through. He was waiting like 10 to 15 minutes on hold. Oh wow! I also found that they remember that lawsuit. I talked about a couple of weeks ago, where I thought Fox News went to the Supreme Court

to say they could lie. Well, it was the Supreme Court, but it was a case called the Susan B. Anthony list or SBA or SBA list versus dry house during the 2010 campaign. That's the one where all the tea party or guys came out of the woodwork. Right. And the organization put billboards up in Ohio about rep, Democrat rep Steve Dryhouse saying

he voted for taxpayer funded abortion. And acclaim, that claim was ruled to be factually incorrect. So the SBA list filed an injunction saying that it was their interpretation of the law and under the First Amendment they should be able to say it and basically they won. Okay. That's kind of where this whole you can lie about stuff. Start it. It came from.

Yeah, yeah. So it was the conservatives, it was just wasn't Fox News, but that's under that ruling Fox News can do what they do basically just lie. Do their thing. Yeah, so I also wanted to thank everyone for all the support and kind words and the thousands of amazing responses we got to our Me Too experiences. It was a rough week but we made it through together and now we can get through this week and prepare for the next week because I don't think it's going to let up. We have a bunch of news to get through so let's get going with just the facts.

So the news did not take a break over the weekend, this weekend. It just plowed right through, pretty much like they were trying to get the Kavanaugh thing through. So it did just kept going. We let you go last week before the 230 Eastern deadline for Blaziford to respond to the Senate Judiciary in the matter of Kavanaugh, and we'll pick right back up there, basically. As you know, Blaziford made the deadline and agreed to continue negotiations with a hearing date for Thursday.

And we're going to go over the weeks events in Kavanaugh and that special segment I told you about later in the show. Sadder day after we recorded, we learned that former Trump aide Jason Miller has been accused of secretly administering an abortion pill to a woman he cheated on his wife with after learning she was pregnant. The accusations came to light in a court filing, alleging that Miller had had an affair with a woman he met at a strip club. The pill caused her to lose the baby and it seriously jeopardized her health as well. Apparently he brought her a smoothie and put it in there and didn't tell her. It was spiked with the abortion pill along with other illicit drugs and nearly put her in a coma. She spent two days in the hospital. Yeah, even plan B the most basic generic pills are

still like they make you really nauseous Like you have to eat certain things and just make sure you're aware of your body and she had no idea No clue insane. Yeah, and I don't know if it was a plan B prevention pill or an abortion pill I think they were saying it's an abortion pill like straight up are you 486 where wow you're already Pregnant where the where plan B prevents you from getting pregnant. Yeah, I've heard about those so also Saturday. Yeah, what a great guy, right? Only the best people. Yeah, also Saturday we learned from the New York Times that billionaire the billionaire backer of Bhutina billionaire backer Bhutina had Russian security ties. No In a New York Times piece by Mike McIntyre

It's alleged that Constantine Nikolayev has been a source of revenue for business useful to the Kremlin, the FSB, and the GRU. The evidence comes from a tranche of 9,000 hacked emails. And you guys know who Bettina is. She was the NRA trying to be a spy. Right. She's a spy, but not a sex spy. No, she's not the sex coach.

Yeah, a spy who didn't check me. Poor Paul, Erickson. Poor Paul. Beauty and the Beast. Yeah, so she's the redhead who poses with guns and was trying to infiltrate. Basically, the Russians were trying to infiltrate religious groups and gun groups and pro-life groups to get into the American political system. Tuesday, we came as close as ever to Rosenstein getting fired.

They even had the chiron up on CNN saying, Rosenstein fired, but then it went back and forth between fired and resigns, and we were all lacing up our marching shoes. We were gonna get ready to go to that, move on.org, find out where our nearest march was. But something was fishy about it. It was almost as fishy as that New York time story that came out the Friday before saying Rosenstein wanted to wear a wire

and Trump meetings. Joining us today to talk about the Rosenstein firing and her new piece on the gamble versus United States case and what that could mean for the Mueller investigation is staff writer for the Atlantic and friend of the podcast Natasha Bertrand. Natasha, welcome back to Mueller. She wrote, thanks so much for having me. We really appreciate you being here. So first of all what do you think was really going on with that Rosenstein firing and then resigning and then not firing and not resigning and did we get any news about Trump's forgotten meeting with him on Thursday? So the meeting actually ends up being postponed because they didn't want to distract from

the Kavanaugh and lazy forward hearings. So as of right now it will be next week, but it might be postponed again because next week of course that's when you know the FBI investigation is going to be going on into Kavanaugh's past. So as of right now I think that Rosencens fate is kind of on hold in terms of the president, but in terms of Congress, he of course has agreed to meet behind closed doors with House Republicans who want to grill him about this New York time story that of course was ultimately the impetus for all of these crazy reports last Monday.

I think it was that he was going to be fired, that he had already resigned. But yeah, so I think that as of right now, the House Republicans are just really taking advantage of the fact that they can use this New York time story as an excuse to call them in and grill him. And also, of course, a subpoena for the Andy McCabe memos, which were central in that story as well. And speaking of that New York Times story, that ended up being contradicted by NBC

and the Washington Post, what do you think the timing seemed really odd? What do you think was really going on there? Yeah, so the Times has come out and said since then that they've been working on that story for months, if not close to a year. I honestly don't know. It's hard for me to speculate on sourcing as a journalist

just because it's bad practice, but it is, it was weird timing, it was suspicious, and it obviously was not, it did not have enough context, and it was not well corroborated, because ultimately the Washington Post and NBC reported later that he was being sarcastic, that he, you know, it was actually endimacade that was who was the one to suggest that an investigation by the FBI be launched into the president and then Rosenstein reportedly said, well, what do you want me to do? Andy, why are the president? And that's the comment that ultimately made its way into the Times. The 25th Amendment talk, you know, reportedly was also sarcastic,

if you're to believe the two, the posts in NBC over the times. But I think it's also important context that the New York Times did not really delve into, which is what was happening during that period. And why the deputy attorney general would find it appropriate to even bring up something like the 25th Amendment or bring up something like potentially recording the president. He had just fired Komi. There was talk of a constitutional crisis. He was obviously trying to impede the investigation into his own campaign. He had just met with the

Russians in the Oval Office and disclosed classified information. I mean, this was someone who at the time career officials really did not think that he was fit to hold the office. They thought that he was very, very unstable. So I think that getting into Rosenstein's state of mind is something that would have benefited the time story a lot. I know that they would not necessarily be able to speculate, but if they could have done some additional reporting, I think that would have made the story much more solid. Also, this week you wrote a great piece for the Atlantic that I've gotten a lot of questions about regarding the Gamble V United States case, which is about the duals of Renady doctrine

that allows for the same crime to be tried both federally and at the state level. And this is a case where a guy went to jail and was, he served his time and then he was charged again for the same crime federally, which I think we can all agree is unfair. But I think what people are taking away from this is that if Kavanaugh has seated, the court could find in favor of this guy and toss out the serenity doctrine which would prevent any Trump pardons from state action. So I just wanted to clarify, as you did in the article that the decision could theoretically protect people that Trump pardons from state action, which means it would have to be in a certain way. It's a very, very, very,

very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,

very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very can either interpret it one of two ways, whether it has the same elements or whether it arose out of the same behavior. So, depending on how, you know, a state would want to interpret what the same crime, what the same crime was, then they are able to still, because of the dual-sommerty doctrine, they are able to charge the same crime as the federal government and vice versa. So this is something that Ornhatch filed a, you know, kind of ran on 44 page Amicus brief on earlier this month, on September 11, I believe. And it was, it stuck out because it just seemed Ornhatch has been active in criminal justice reform, but he has never weighed in on this subject in particular. So seeing him kind of go, you know, write this massive brief

all about how the state and the federal government should not be able to charge someone with the same crime just because, you know, based on the idea that a state has the right to protect and preserve its own laws and the federal government does as well was really stark because of course on hatch Mr. Prince Urban of Republican you would think it would be on the side of kind of expanded states rights, but in this case he was not. So speaking to lawyers about it, speaking to kind of constitutional experts about it, the

lawyers were very cut and dry. They said, yes, of course, this could have dramatic implications for Mueller's investigation because if the dual sovereignty doctrine were overturned, then it would seem rather clear that the states, for example, if things were to get farmed out to the state attorney generals, attorney general, then they would not be able to charge, for example, someone who's already been pardoned by Trump on the federal level for the same crime. So that would in turn strengthen Trump's pardon power. But constitutional experts who are always discussing interpretation and how to interpret things, they said, well, this actually might not be as dramatic as it seems, because if you take

the president's pardon power to include only crimes against the United States, if you take the president's pardon power to include only crimes against the United States, if you interpret that as exclusively a federal offense, then that might not extend to states anyway. So in that sense, his pardon power is constitutionally confined to federal offenses. So there's a lot of gray area here, but one thing is certain, which is that if the dual sovereignty doctrine were overturned and the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment had no exceptions to it, then that would really make it a lot murkier with regard to if Trump were to pardon someone prematurely on the federal level, whether or not a state would then be able to try them for the same or similar depending on how they define that crime

on the state level. Right, and that doesn't preclude at all if he is seen as using the pardon powers and abuse of power. I mean, that's just a completely separate idea and politically and optically that could be really bad for him, whether or not they can be tried in the state as well. And I feel like different charges or at least similar charges brought up by different facts. Like you said, could theoretically still be fair game. And, you know, like, and also gamble is going to basically set the precedent. This guy served time for a crime and then was recharged or tried to be tried again in federal and presumably if Trump like

you said pardon too soon premature pardon that uh... and and met like let's say pardon man for who hadn't gone to jail yet i don't know that it would be it would fall under this kind of precedent right exactly it just really mud the waters. And I think it's also important. Just as a side note to say that Cabinot is when he was asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee a couple weeks ago during his first round of hearings, what where he fell on the question of self-partons, he dodged. He would not answer the question. So we're not really clear where he stands on that, whether or not for example a president can be subpoenaed. So we're not really clear where he stands on that, whether or not, for example, a president can be subpoenaed. So these are all areas where Kavanaugh, as someone who was undecided on those issues, or at least said he was undecided, and also has historically been in

favor of expanded presidential power and executive power, he could really help the president. And this is another instance in gamble where he could be a swing vote and the consequences could be pretty dramatic. And yeah, I feel like he could be a swing vote in gamble, but I don't think so necessarily in like a subpoena situation, like if Mueller subpoenaed the president, I feel like, yeah, I mean, you know,

I can't figure out why Trump is digging his heels in so much for Kavanaugh, like why he didn't cut bait and just try to nominate one of the other lady judges. Because, I mean, presumably, yeah, I mean, Kavanaugh might rule that the president is above a law, but I don't think any maybe of the other judges would rule in that rule that way either. Or like, you know what I mean? Like, I don't see that as a big a thing as maybe like this gamble case. Yeah, that's a really good point. It's, it's, he has such a kind of out of the mainstream view of executive power that

it's really unclear and unlikely that the other judges would go along with it. So that's a really good point. All right. So finally, I wanted to ask you, we learned this week, I think it was on Maddo or MSNBC, that Whitaker and not the PADAG, O'Callahan, he's the new paydag, but it would be Whitaker that would take over the number two spot if Rosenstein were fired, which is not normal,

and it's important because that person who would be Whitaker would oversee all the investigations that aren't Mueller related. So like the Cohen Southern District or New York and the Trump organization and the Trump foundation lawsuits and things like that. So could you tell us why that might be important? Yeah, so Whitaker is Jeff Sashin's chief of staff, was I believe. And he has said in the past, I mean, he's expressed skepticism in the past about the special council investigation. He has said that it should be wrapped up.

So I'm not as red in, you guys know what I'm going to cut this because I'm not as red in on this issue as I probably should be, but yeah, I mean, I think that his partisan nature could be problematic. So I think it's important to note that anyone Trump replaces Rosenstein with, if that person actually refuses, because we've always been talking about, if they get rid of Rosenstein and put in a guy like Bench Kowski, who's pro-Trump, and then that person could refuse anything Mueller recommends. But I think it's important to note, or at least I've heard, that refusing to do that,

that decision of refusal goes to the ranking member of the House and Senate Judiciary. So I mean, I think that that, do you think, I mean, that could have an impact on whether that decision of refusal goes to the ranking member of the House and Senate judiciary. I think that that, do you think that could have an impact on whether or not they refuse these kind of things politically, it could be really bad for him? Right, of course, and it's also worth noting that there's going to be a blue wave, because I mean, it's very unlikely that that Democrats are not going to take the House, which is going to change all of the calculations dramatically when it comes to anything that comes out of the Russian investigation, I think, but there's going to be, Trump is going to have to think twice before he decides that he

wants to appoint someone who is very clearly in his camp. There's going to be a lot of pushback on that. Yeah, and I'm pretty sure that I think the number three right now is no well Francisco because the associate deputy attorney general is an acting and you can't have an acting be an acting acting. And so, uh, Right, so be Francisco who would take over the Mueller investigation, or overseeing the Mueller investigation that Rosenstein were out, so. Yeah, and he seems to be a Mueller ally. I know that there was that public dinner he had with sessions and Rosenstein.

They seemed to kind of be on the same page at least. At least that was sort of what they were seemingly publicly telling us. Yeah, he has in the past been skeptical of special counsel investigations, but he's also been very, very quiet on the issue of this investigation in particular, and it does not seem like he would, that he's partisan in any way. It seems like he, from everyone I've spoken to, he is a very kind of Rosenstein-esque figure just in terms of his discipline and keeping his head down and understanding the importance of this investigation.

So, I don't think that if Francis go tokover, we would see any kind of dramatic shift in the way that the investigation. So I don't think that if Bransisco took over, we would see any kind of dramatic shift in the way that the investigation's going. That being said, it's always possible that he could be less generous to Mueller than Rosenstein has been, because Rosenstein has taken an extremely hands-off approach to the investigation

and has been very much an ally and supportive of Mueller throughout it. We could see a slight shift in that in Francisco, it just really depends, but I don't think we would see anything big. All right, well, staff writer for The Atlantic and Mueller expert extraordinaire Natasha Bertrand, thanks for joining us. Thank you so much. Then later Tuesday, an email obtained by ABC suggested Roger Stone sought contact with Jolena Sange of WikiLeaks in emails with James Corsi back on July 31, 2016. One email said, quote, Malik should see a Sange referring to Ted Malik. That's that London-based

conservative author and Trump supporter guy. Malik's been interviewed by Mueller's team. And the email was sent nine days after the WikiLeaks drum dump of the first batch of stolen DNC emails from Gucci for 2.0. The other email came from Stone to Corsi, suggesting Malik find a British woman who had leveled accusations against former President Bill Clinton and to find Bernie Sanders' brother who called Bill Clinton a rapist. It was in August that Stone seemed to have advanced knowledge of the second document, and Stone had admitted to having been in contact with Goodcher for 2.0. So the email is likely from the Corsi Grand Jury interview that happened last Friday,

and Corsi is the 11th member of the Roger Stonehenge band to be contacted by special counsel 11 people surrounding him. Tuesday, friend of the pod, Scott Stedmanman made his stellar comeback, releasing a report on Twitter that the PR firm CRC, that's the firm Ed Wheeling hired to get shit on Blaziford, is actually connected to Yanukovych. Jesus, crazy. It's just going to get into this ridiculous Russian Dole situation. I don't know.

Yeah. So, in the mid-2000s, CRC was subcontracted to work on behalf of Victor Yanaković. They were hired to get meetings with DC leaders to improve Yanaković's image. They filed a fair statement, unlike Manafort, confirming that the money they received was on behalf of a foreign entity, Yanaković. The payment coincides with Manafort's work, but there's no evidence that the CRC worked with Manafort or has any continuing relationship with Yana Kovic or any Putin allies. So I'm so glad Stem and his back.

We're going to have him, he was on like a super top secret mission that no one could talk about, but now he's back. Cool. And we're going to have him on next week's week show to drop some big news. He's got a good stuff. Oh, that's exciting. A big story for us. Yeah.

I was also thinking too, I was listening. RT was covering the Kavanaugh hearings incredibly. And it's like people are like, oh, what are they doing that? It's obvious why they're doing it. It's why we cover on this podcast aside from it being related to women and our struggles. But it's like, it's relevant. Yeah, Kavanaugh gets on the Supreme Court.

He's gonna support Trump and all his efforts to be protected from being punished appropriately over the Russia shit. Right, he's above the law. Yeah, and of course we can't forget that Camel and Harris line of questioning where she's like did you talk to people at the cassowitz Tor is whatever law firm. Mm-hmm. I don't know who works there, but like fuck you Have that guy in the a But not I'm not gay shaming

Sorry, I get emails. It's only because he doesn't like it. It's nearly the reason you're saying that. It's not a gay thing. Well, he might, I don't know. That's true. Yeah, I don't want to assume his butt pleasure. Right.

He couldn't be in the butt stuff. We don't know. That's cool. High five, bro. Anyway, Scott Stedman has decided now to work for the people and his listeners and his readers instead of a major news outlet. And he now has a primo account to help him pay his bills.

So head to primosocial.com, that's PR-EMO, primosocial.com slash Scott Stedman to sign up for his premium Twitter feed. It's really amazing. So you wanna get it on that, help him pay his bills, keep supporting like this free journalism because that's what he is. Hell yeah. It's really amazing. So you want to get it on that help me as bills keep supporting like this free Journalism because that's what it is. Hell yeah. He's pretty cool. Then Wednesday the Daily Beast dropped a story called Quote revealed what Eric Prince and Moscow's Money Man discussed in that infamous say Shels meeting and Jalisa is gonna go over that later in the show.

Thursday were the Kavanaugh blazy Ford hearings and we're gonna talk about that later. But finally Friday the Washington Post dropped a story on the Congressional Democrats' lawsuit about Trump violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution, and Jordan's going to go over that later in the show. So stick around for that, we'll be right back. Hey, Mueller junkies. So recently, Jelisa Jordan and I had the pleasure of going online and shopping for a bra on third love, and they have not just bra bras, they have undies and everything too

and they have this really cool fit finder test that you take that doesn't just talk about like the size of your bra but also the shape like the cup shape and if your strap slip or if you get spillage like it really goes into a lot of detail and they have all these side like they have they use metadata like thousands of women's measurements to find your perfect fit. So I went on and it's really easy, right? I just answered a bunch of questions about the shape of myself and the size and what I normally wear. They ask you kind of like what bras you usually use

and what works or doesn't work about it. And then they find you your perfect size. And so I don't know, it was an easy quiz, right? Totally, yeah. I felt like they were kind of reading my mind with the stuff they were asking. It was like, yes, this is always what I'm thinking about. I need to be addressed when I'm brush-hopping and they were addressing it and it was really great.

They get everything down. I had issues with my back, like chest band always riding up. And when I got this one, it doesn't ride up. It hasn't ridden up and last like, you know, the times I've worn it. And it's fabulous. So you don't have to worry about that thing.

And then it's like, I've noticed that it's really smoothing, so I don't have any, you know, back fat problems with their bra, because I usually, I kind of run into that sometimes. And you can be like as thin as a stick and still get that squeeze, you know what I mean? Definitely. It felt like having a personal tailor, really.

It did. And they just added 24 new sizes, so they're the industry leader. They have 70 sizes now. I think they have half cups and everything. And it's really the details that make a difference, because like I said, it's really soft. It's smoothing. I really love it. I'm wearing it right now.

And like I said, just hop on, take that fit finder quiz. Oh yeah, I'm wearing the undies. They were really soft. I had two. Yeah, they. Oh yeah, I'm wearing the Undies. They were really strong too. Yeah, they're so soft. I got the cheeky ones. Ooh. The cheeky lace they went. They're very nice.

I feel very girly. Nice. Anyway, hands down, most comfortable bra. I've worn. And the straps don't slip. They don't dig in. It doesn't ride up like you were saying. So guys, they're given a special offer to our listeners.

Right now, if you go to thirdlove.com slash AG You'll get 15% off your first order. So definitely check that out. That's actually a really good discount 15% is pretty big So anybody who needs a new bra go give them a try take their fit finder quiz and you know find your perfect size again It's thirdlove.com slash AG calm slash AG. All right, welcome back. Hot notes. Welcome back today.

Jordan is going to give us an update on the emolument suit. But first, Jolissa has some news on what really went down in the say shows. What happens in the say shows stays in the say shows. Jolissa, yes, I've been trying so hard to make a little like a folk thing, to have some news on what really went down in the say-shells. What happens in the say-shells stays in the say-shells. Jalisa? Yes, I've been trying so hard to make a little folk thing like somebody sold say-shells by the seashore, but I can't get it to make sense. But you tongue twisted. Exactly, yeah.

Yes, so as we've previously reported, Mueller's team and other investigators have been looking into that infamous say-shells meeting between Putin and Trump's people, the one that happened just weeks before Trump's inauguration. And so far, the details about the meeting have been super murky, but now we have a memo that was sent right after the meeting and provided to us for the first time by the Daily Beast,

and it sheds new light on what happened from the Russian's perspective. So just to bring you up to speed, on January 7, 2017, a meeting took place at the four seasons hotel between Eric Prince, the former head of Blackwater, and Kharil Dmitry, with the CEO of a Russian sanctions fund. George Nader was also there. And even after a year through the meeting, Prince testified to Congress that the meeting was very informal and took place over a beer.

Right, like they just ran into each other. Yeah, they went all the way over there for beer. So he also denies that he doesn't like beer. He doesn't like beer. They do. Yeah, Kevin all loves beer. We had beer. We like beer. What beer do you like? Do you drink beer? I drink beer. Do you drink? Do you have what do you drink?

I bet like beer companies were like, hell yeah. This confirmation here brought to you by Bud Light. He just has a blazer with a big like Budweiser patch. Dude, no, Miller time. Oh God. The champagne of beers? Oh, fancy. And even the executive director of the Trump transition team told the Daily Beast that after a view of its files, they found no indication that anyone on their team

helped plan the seashells meeting or knew about it in advance, which is interesting. However, since the testimony Mueller's team has received information that the meeting was, quote, a pre-organized effort to set up back channel between Trump and the Kremlin. And that was when the Washington Post. So now, according to this new memo that Demetrius sent after the meeting, apparently there were plans for the U.S. and Russia to tackle some of the toughest diplomatic challenges facing the two countries. The memo specifically lists four potential areas of cooperation, including a joint U.S. Russian raids to kill top terrorists, improvements between the U.S. Russia relations generally, teamwork between an American government agency and a sanctioned

Russian fund, as well as talks of Moscow pouring money into the Midwest. So as a lot of us know, Trump spent his entire presidential campaign promising to bring back jobs to the Rust Belt States, and this memo is now evidence that Russia was definitely listening and proposing ways to help Trump make that campaign promise come true. And as far as the joint special forces, according to the memo, the idea was set up or the idea was to set up a mission where the US and Russia would take out a key ISIS person or place and then announce it together afterwards. It's very cute.

Oh, that's true. Yeah, it's just going to say a whole hand. Yeah, frenzies. We did it. Oh my God. Our first killing. I just see that little, that little wombat thing with his fist up in the air. We did it.

Yes. I love it. So, but either way, I will note that although the Kremlin was sanctioned at the time, it's still apparently legal for a US person to meet with him and do limited business deals with them, but the issue is that this still doesn't really add up. And one Obama-era state department officials said all the priorities laid out in the memo would be typical for two countries with normal relations, but he added that he was astounded that this pitch was made in the wake of Russia's 2016 election meddling. He said it was breathtaking. And regarding Princess testimony, Jim Himes, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said, why Eric Prince? Why

Dimitri? Why did this meeting happen? And he went on to mention how conversations like that happen every day, but this one seems different. It was clearly a low profile meeting about some pretty serious stuff. And Himes went on to say, this just feels to me like one more of the half dozen examples of Russians sticking their tentacles out to see what kind of relationship they might build. You. Yeah. Very interesting choice of words. You have anime in my head now.

Russian tentacle paper. Yeah, yeah. They're just trying to figure out what kind of influence they could have. And personally, I feel like Putin wanting to pour money into the Midwest is more about him having influence over our politics and As we know Putin he doesn't have you know our best interest at heart So I just think he wants to get in deeper into American, you know politics and just destroy it from my thin like he's been doing with Trump Can I ask a quick question? Oh totally. Sorry. Sorry. No worries. Okay So this was supposed to come from a fund

that was a Russian sanctioned fund. Absolutely. Yeah, yeah. So then is that not in- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In-

In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In-

In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In- In-yn- In- In- In- In- In- sanctioned funds. Yeah, yeah, the sanction part is up for a lot of controversy because people are saying well I guess an individual person is allowed to make deals but we're or Mueller's assuming that it was on behalf of Trump So they're trying to prove whether or not he was doing things on behalf of the administration or not

Yeah, and it would seem like it could end up that all these Russians are just reaching out to the Trump campaign and getting their weird tentacles in there And maybe Trump Wasn't an active player, but he had to have known about a lot of it. And just knowing that felonies are occurring is a felony. When you're not reporting it, particularly since the FBI came to him early on and said, hey, Russians are gonna try to reach out to you.

You gotta tell us. Absolutely. So one way or the other, it's illegal. Totally. All right, discussing, was the the Seychelles meeting was before Trump took off the operation, but he had already been elected. Because you can't, that's against the Logan Act to act on behalf of a president who's not yet seated. There you go. Yeah. So those kind of negotiations, whether you're talking about good stuff or bad stuff, still against the law

against the Logan Act, but no one's ever prosecuted and the Logan Act. But we'll see what that, how that shakes out. But you also have to remember that, I mean, you can't, yeah, like if you were a president and you had this meeting, it'd be okay to talk about operations in Syria and special ops and special forces and working together to fight ISIS, but it would not, and it is never okay

to talk about lifting sanctions in exchange for influence or absolutely political influence from a foreign country adversary specifically. Right. And you said at that same meeting, they were talking about pumping money into the Midwest to support Trump. Is that supporting Trump throughout his presidency or for his reelection in 2020 or what he's saying?

Yeah, I don't know. It just seems like from the memo, all we know is that they had plans to do this. And it sounds like they were pumping it specifically into the jobs and then the rest. It's probably an exchange for easing on sanctions so that they could go forward with a lot of these oil and gas deals that they want to do or the Marshall Plan where their Russians are going to help build reactors

in Saudi Arabia, stuff like that. Yeah, he's also doing, you know, the tariffs that he's implementing are hitting people really hard in the Midwest too. So. Yeah. He's also doing, you know, the tariff studies implementing are hitting people really hard in the Midwest too. So as if you pump money into, you know, making them think that you're the greatest person ever, that's going to make your job easier. Good point. Yeah.

All right. Well, thanks, Julie. So of course, thank you. Yeah, that was awesome. All right, Jordan, what do you have for us on the Amaliments lawsuit filed by Congressional Democrats? Yeah. So just one of the Amaliments lawsuit, there's a few of them as we know.

But this one, so a federal judge on Friday ruled that a case that was filed by 200 Democrats against Donald Trump for violating the emoluments clause, can move forward, which is exciting because if you'll remember a while back, we reported on one that was trying to go through and it got halted on the grounds of it not being legit enough, I guess. I forget exactly what it was. Sorry, I can go back and fact check myself on that. Basically, this was accepted on the basis of doing business with foreign governments, went in office without congressional consent. So that's what this really lies on. This is why the Democrats are the ones that are suing him. So basically, what he's doing, and has done, he hosts foreign embassy events and also hosts foreign officials and nationals in his Washington, DC hotel. And he hasn't given any details about these transactions or the money that he's making from them to Congress and he certainly hasn't asked for his per for their permission

which is required per demonetism's cause. He's not done this on the basis of him. He says, well, I don't need to ask them because what, you know, what this is doesn't count as the founding father's definition of foreign emoluments because he stands to gain nothing from these. And he says their business deals not payoffs. It's anything of value. Yeah. Okay. And I love to hear him try to quote what the founding fathers met. It's like, bro, you don't know how our government works on a fundamental level. Shut up. Did you read the Federalist paper? I don't know what that is, but I'm sure it's a lie. It was written by the founding side. Yeah, exactly. And it's like, you don't just get to decide preemptively what's going to be defined by the Constitution.

That's for Congress to decide. And that is actually what the judge that's overseeing this said. So his name's Emmett Sullivan. And he sounds like a pretty chill guy. He pretty much is siding with the Democrats so far. One would imagine, I mean, to allow it to, yeah, he is. And with the law, that is true. That is true. So the Justice Department is going to be defending Trump

in court, which is nice because it kind of gives something to shut up about because he's always talking about how they're not having his back. So it's probably in a well-frensist skill. The name I saw, and well, yeah, you're probably right. So the list of it generally usually defends the government or fights on behalf of the government in court So I would assume it could be somebody else. I'm just guessing. Yeah

So Blumenthal and Nadler are saying that Trump has effectively nullified their vote by not ever even bringing it to their attention that he was receiving this kind of money from these foreign events and Nationals and by not even giving them an option to vote on anything period is revoking that from them. And Trump says that he believes Congress should have to, this is great. He thinks Congress should have to pass a law first saying he specifically can't do what he's doing. So he's saying Congress should have to act first to settle this. And Congress is saying, no, bro, this is already a law. You're just not following it. You have to ask us first.

And the judge looks like, deciding with the Democrats on this point. This is a quote from the judge explicitly. He says, the clause requires a president to ask Congress before accepting a prohibited foreign emolument. If the allegations made by Democrats are true, the president is accepting prohibited foreign emoluments without asking and without receiving a favorable reply from Congress. So I'm feeling good about at

least the fairness of this moving forward. Typically judges are reluctant to accept cases in which lawmakers are suing the president for obvious reasons. But I don't like this guy. So Jesus, can you imagine that crazy guy? Yeah, but but the judge ruled that this was okay, basically on the basis that the Democrats have nowhere else to go. There's nowhere else they can even settle this. It's pretty much the only option. So essentially, the judge is going to be ruling on whether or not the Constitution's intended definition of emoluments is broad enough to include what he's been doing with hosting these events and hosting these nationals. And while Trump has stopped managing his various properties owned by the Trump organization,

he stills the owner, and because of that, can pull money out from those organizations at his will pretty much at any time. That's kind of where the main issue lies here still. So this is really lawsuit about transparency, I think, because they tried, and I didn't know this happened in February, the Trump org donated $151,470 to the US Treasury, saying that those were the profits from foreign government business in 2017. Okay. But they declined to explain how that figure was even calculating. Yeah

that doesn't seem right because I heard to tell that Saudi Arabia crown prince and all the embezz guys rented an entire floor of the Trump International hotel which is in the form of postal service building right next to the White House and that would have cost more than 150,000. Oh, yeah. Well, they have to pay them, you know, themselves are hourly rate of $5 million. Oh, right. Yeah.

I'm never good about that. Yeah. Oh, that's my hourly rate. So odd. No, you're worth, Trump. Yeah. Just a reminder, just wrapping this up for context. There's another, he's currently wrapped up in another emoluments clause case and that's

the one that the state of Maryland and District of Columbia are bringing against him. And this is on the grounds that his hotels and properties are basically allowed to unfairly profits in the area due to the nature of his name and his person being attached to that DC hotel. Department lawyers are saying this is not an issue because the payments from those people aren't resulting in any kinds of benefits, but that's up for the courts to decide. Money. Right.

Money is not a bet. Maybe he'll argue that money is not a benefit to him because he has so much of that. Yes, the best things in life are free. Money isn't a thing for me. It's just paper. You know, you're allowed to get paper, I'm sure. Yeah, watch me burn this pen. That's how much I don't care. And just a fun fact. The Amal-Eumins clause has not been tested for more than 200 years in the

courts since you know Franklin, I I think was the last guy. This is what you get when you get a fluke fucking unless it's an anecdote. It might be an anecdote. Something about Ben Franklin went going to England and getting a snuff box as a present and not clearing it with Congress and they all hooked up. It could just be like a you know when the when the legend becomes when the when the legend becomes, when the lie becomes legend print the lie or something like that. Right, right. I mean, it's got to start somewhere, so maybe.

It could be. I don't know. I'm just guessing. I heard once. I read it a lot on the internet. I read it a lot. What are you today? Today, for my hot note, I had an amazing chat this week with one of the smartest guys I've ever talked to. Second only to Greg Proops of course the

smartest man in the world. So let's take a listen to that interview. Joining us today to discuss his new book Cold War Hot Piece is Professor of Political Science, former US ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014 and basically the architect of Barack Obama's policy on Russia, please welcome Michael McFaul. Mr. McFaul, welcome to Mullahshi Road. Thanks for having me. We're so glad you're here.

Could you maybe kick us off by telling us a little bit about your book and maybe some of your experiences being enemy number one of Putin and how that all culminated starting with your ambassador ship and leading all the way up to the Helsinki summit where recently Trump actually considered allowing Putin to question you and others including Bill Browder calling it a quote, incredible offer, unquote. Sure. Well, I didn't start off trying to be Vladimir Putin's enemy. I actually met him in the spring of 1991, so I've known him for a long time. But the book tries to explain, I mean, the essence of the book is why are we in such a confrontational period now compared to where we were at the end of the Cold War when a lot of people most certainly myself thought

we could build a more cooperative relationship with Russia, integrate Russia into the international community of states. And you know, Democrat and Republican administrations had tried to do that for the last three decades, that project has now failed in my view. And so the book tries to explain why. And without trying to fit a 500-page book into a 30-second sound bite, but I'm going to try anyway. I basically rustle through the big theories and explanations that you find in academia and in the government.

And I go through classic balance of power theories to say that is not the whole explanation. It's not just because Russia's a powerful country that we have conflict because I can think of other countries that have risen in power that do not try to annex territory of their neighbors or confront the United States. I then go through in quite a bit of detail, by the way, alleged mistakes that America made and US foreign policy in terms of prodding the bear, things like NATO expansion, the Iraq war, Serbia, war in 1999, and I go through those things and I do talk about how they did make relations more difficult.

But my punchline, my bottom line up front, as I learned in my days in the government from my Pentagon friends, my bluff, is that when push comes to shove, the real driving force for this current conflict has to do with Russian domestic politics. And in particular, when Vladimir Putin comes back to the presidency in 2012, he does that

right as there are massive demonstrations against his regime and his system of government. And that combination makes him look for a new argument for legitimacy. And that's when he turns against the West, when he turns against Obama, and when he turns against me, blaming me as I arrive as ambassador in January 2012 for fomenting revolution against his regime. And that, to me, is the point in overturn. And that's the beginning of what I think is a tragic,

but has to recognize period of confrontation that we're in right now. I see. So you're kind of in the same boat as Hillary when she's being blamed for the uprising in the protest of 2011 because of that speech that she gave. So therefore planting this seed that she's somebody we have to go after. That's right. I mean, I was part of the government back then. I was working at the White House. I'm the person that approved Secretary Clinton's statement that became a very consequential statement. We didn't know it at the time, but in December 2011, as you hinted at, she puts out a statement. I think she was in Lithuania at the time if I'm not mistaken.

I remember very vividly. I was at my son's football game in some place in Maryland on the phone with her team. And she just said what I think most of the world said was that this parliamentary election in December 2011 was not free and fair and that was the truth. and that was the truth. And, you know, we'd said things like that before, but this time Putin took offense to it. He thought it was a signal, that's what he called it, a signal to demonstrators to come out on the streets of Moscow, and ever since that moment,

he blamed her, he blamed me, he blamed our administration for interfering allegedly in his electoral cycle. And that's why in 2016, I think he sought a branch. Wow, that's a really good point. I hadn't made that connection before. And I think the fact that our elections and probably our president are compromised can have some really terrible consequences and kind of lend to the inability to govern globally by the US.

For example, like we've been reporting a lot on what's going on in the Idlib province in Syria. And there was recently a triple summit between Erdogan from Turkey and Rouhani from Iran and Putin. And the US was noticeably absent from that entire summit. And I kept thinking to myself myself how can the US even interject itself cleanly because of the Compromot that probably Putin has on Trump. So what do you have to say about that? It's kind of frightening that we don't have the upper hand anymore. Well, without question, President Trump has a, and I'm going to be diplomatic, very unique strategy for dealing with Putin and Russia.

And I think it's a highly flawed strategy. He believes somehow that saying nice things about Putin will make them, you know, they'll develop a personal-friendly relationship. And that kind of thing, I think that's all he's trying to do. And what is flawed about the theory, we're going to get to the Y in a minute, but what's flawed about the theory is he kind of thinks that, you know, a better relationship with Putin is the goal of the Trump administration's foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And you know, that's not the right way to do diplomacy.

The way you do diplomacy is you define what are objectives that are good for Americans, in terms of our security, our prosperity, our values. Then you figure out the means to achieve that. Sometimes it's diplomacy, sometimes it's more coercive diplomacy. He's just got those things mixed up. So, you know, if all of his happy talk and praise of Putin would lead to concrete objectives that are in America's national interest, I would applaud that.

I just don't see any evidence of that strategy succeeding, including the last summit that they had in Helsinki where again, the president just went out of his way to praise Putin when question at the press conference took the side of Putin against our intelligence community in saying that he didn't think the Russians had done anything in 2016 just crazy given the overwhelming evidence that there is to support that they did. And then, you know, you look at those interactions, and as you alluded to in your introduction, he then, you know, Putin said he wanted to interrogate a bunch of Americans because Mueller

wanted to arrest a bunch of Russian intelligence officials who he had documented, had violated our sovereignty in 2016, and to that offer, President Trump said, that's a great idea. You know, I think Mr. Putin has been very generous in that. You know, the idea of handing me over to the Russians to interrogate me by the way, just to be clear, because it became clear later, for work that I did as a white house official, that is my alleged crime. And so on a personal level, I don't think that's a great deal. I don't think that was a great outcome from the summit.

But the American people have to ask, well, what did we get out of that summit? What American interest was advanced? And my answer is nothing. And then I don't want to dodge your question about it, Lib and Syria generally. You know, I get the sense that President Trump doesn't want to be involved in engaging on what to do there. And he just wants to retreat. And I think that's the wrong strategy because we fought with our

allies a war against ISIS in eastern Syria. I think I supported that war, by the way, when it started under a presidential Obama and continued under the Trump administration. But to now just retreat and to hand over that territory to a brutal dictator in Mr. Assad and his allies, the Russians and the Iranians and Hezbollah, I just don't think serves American national interests. And more generally, I would say his impulse to retreat from a global leadership, I think in the long run, will be detrimental to US interests. It doesn't advance our cause. Right.

And you have to wonder if he's walking away so he doesn't upset Putin. Like as you said, you can't set your foreign diplomacy goals so short-sightedly. It can't just be like, I want this guy to like me. So you have to think that this plays a role in how he responds to things like this. It's really frightening considering what's at stake in that area, because it's been said

it can turn into one of the largest humanitarian crises that we've ever seen. I agree, and I just think it's irresponsible to disengage there, and I think it's bad policy to make the goal of your Russia policy getting a few kind words from Putin. Now the question is why, right? Why is he so hell bent on appeasing Putin? And you know, I mean one theory is that that's just his general strategy about foreign policy and he does that with other autocratic leaders. So that's one hypothesis, but the other hypothesis, of course, is that the Russians have something on them, and he's fearful of why that information might be released.

And to that, we have to wait for Mr. Mueller to answer that question. Yeah, that seems the most obvious to me, but we do need to wait and find out. But that would be where my money would be if I were a betting person. Finally, can you speak a little bit to way back in the day, starting with the Mayflower meeting, with Trump and Sessions and Copsin and Flynn and all those guys? Everybody was there, Bud McFarlane, KT. They have this whole so-called Marshall Plan where they want to build reactors in Saudi Arabia. I think Copsin even said that, quote,

we're going to recolonize the Middle East by building these reactors. And then we have to put bases up and we have to put US troops in there to guard them. And then, of course, they would want to go in and do this deal with Russia, so they'd have to live sanctions to do that. Do you think this whole plan to recolonize the Middle East, which is terrifying, by the way, is that maybe the impetus behind the entire goal of easing sanctions on Russia? You know, it's an interesting idea. I mean, the whole thing, I think, is crazy. So just my own personal view, I don't know. It just seems really cookie to me. But there is a thread that connects all these players and most certainly Putin himself

is trying to reposition Russia in the Middle East to develop closer relations with American traditional allies. First on that list is Israel, but second is the Sunni world, including Saudi Arabia. And therefore, if you think about President Trump's forays into the Middle East, putting Israel and the Arab countries higher on the list, down the road road I can see why people might dream about that kind of reconfiguration, but I personally think it's a really bad idea. We should just pursue our own interests in the Middle East. We don't need permission from the Russians to do so, and I actually think bringing the Russians in adds to a lot of complications.

Remember that with regard to Syria, right? Another area where you've heard about these grand designs that the Russians and Americans will get together and solve the civil war there. We'll remember Putin's ally in Syria is Mr. Asak, one of the worst dictators in the world who has been accused of crimes against humanity. That's one of his allies.

The next ally he has is the Iranians. They are fighting on the ground with the Russians in Syria. And then a third ally he has his beloved terrorist organization. So remember when you talk about Align with Putin to do things in the Middle East. Remember all those characters that come with him. Yeah, and I think that's probably one of the key features in the reset with trying diplomacy when you were ambassador in Hillary with Secretary of State. You can just give up on Russia without giving up on those other things that align you with Russia that you're trying to accomplish. Yeah, I agree. I mean, the reset was very simple. We were just trying to advance American national interests.

I think there's been, you know, and that's why I want people to read the book. That's why I wrote the book to kind of demystify what we are trying to do. We weren't trying to be friends with the Russians. We were trying to hold hands and sink kumbaya. We were trying to reduce nuclear weapons in the world. We got that done. We were trying to get sanctions on Iran so that we could create the conditions for Iran nuclear deal. We got that done. We were trying to reduce our dependency on Pakistan,

supplying our troops in Afghanistan, so that we could then go after Osama bin Laden in 2011. We got that done. We went from 95% to less than 50% of our supplies went through Pakistan, and they went through Russia instead so that we could go after Osama bin Laden in 2011. And I could go on. It was very concrete in things that we decided were in our national interests. And we thought that Russia could play a role in advancing our national interest. And we reasoned that they wouldn't do so unless they thought it was in their interests as well.

And for a while, we got a lot of big things done. And then things changed domestically, as I said earlier, inside Russia, when Putin came back and he had a different approach towards us and what could we do? We had to take two to tango, right? You can't force countries to cooperate with you. So, and then in my view, we had to move, and I say it tragically, I'm not some cold warrior

wanting to get back to confrontation, but when Putin started acting like a rogue actor in the international system, annexing territory from Ukraine, supporting a genocidal dictator like Mr. Assad and then violating our sovereignty in 2016, of course you had to push back. And I hope eventually the Trump administration will learn that that's the only course of action to take with Putin today. All right, well thank you so much for agreeing to speak to us today. I really appreciate it. This has been very eye-opening. We're honored to talk to you. Everyone, the former ambassador to Russia under Obama and the author of the book Cold War Hot Piece. It's available now wherever books are sold. Michael McFall, thanks for being on Mueller, she wrote.

Sure, thanks for having me. Hey Mueller junkies, I just wanted to say hello to all of our new friends of the pod, contributing a few dollars a month for access to our premium content. This week we had four bonus episodes, including our MSW book club, which is currently reviewing Fear by Bob Woodward. Among them bonus episodes are our full, unedited interviews with guests like Rosie O'Donnell, Greg Proops, former Russian ambassador Mike McFall, former Minnesota Vikings kicker Chris Cluey, and political experts like Joyce Vance, Asha Rangapa, Seth Abramson, and Scott Dworkin. We also have bonus episodes on process and policy like this week will be doing a mini-sode

for our growing international audience that explains the basic governance of the United States and our more relevant processes and constitutional tenets. We also have a ton of cool gifts for patrons including t-shirts, tote bags, stickers, and our highly sought-after sexy justice calendar. As a patron you get your own private RSS feed for ad-free main episodes and finally patrons will receive our weekly newsletter which includes photos, infographics, relevant links, mentioned in the show, and my personal show notes, which include the articles cited in our content. Once you're a patron, you're a patron for life, regardless of what sort of deals we sign, so get in on the

ground floor of now by heading to patreon.com slash mullershirope. You'll be glad you did. All right you guys ready for the fantasy indictment league? Yes! All right, so this week I was wondering if the FBI is really satisfied with KT McFarlane's quote revisions, aka lies, or do they have to wait to indict her with the rest of the gang? These investigations have so many veins they have to be cauterized before you can sew the whole case up. So, if you indict her ahead of the rest, it could help Trump or any of the big fish with

their own defenses or cause them to engage in witness tampering or intimidation, right? So that's why I'm keeping her off my team for now though if he indites Everyone at once. We only get five picks So you'll want to have all the high point people on your team for that week But I feel like some folks can be indicted sooner for financial stuff So that's why I'm gonna keep Kushner and Papa Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. Ivanka and Stone. What is interesting? Where are you guys at? I'm keeping the same two because it's all big ones. It's Kushner. It's Cohen, Bhutina,

Trump or heaven. You had Jr. on there. Yeah, and that's all five, I believe. Yeah, so I'm hoping he doesn't all at once in the end. That'll be nice. It would be a good week. Best day ever. I'm gonna organize them. Okay, I'm gonna say Trump org Kushner, DTJ, Stone and a Russian. A Russian rando.

I do wanna say, I know you guys have the Trump org on there, but I don't think that the Trump organ itself I guess from what I was talking when I was talking to some experts about it the organizations are rarely Indicted it's usually the executives of the organization. So you can keep the Trump organ there If you want I mean it might because we you know we've already had like three or four entities Russia has been indicted. But that's kind of why I have Avonka and Junior on theirs because I think they would be the ones

from the Trump org. Yeah, the direct source there. That's a very good point. I'm gonna only stick to it because, well, I don't know, is it a lesser point to get the Trump org than the Gideon-Vonka? Yes. Oh, on that case, I already have Junior,

so I'm gonna switch out my Trump org for Ivonka then. Okay, appreciate that. I'm gonna stay, so I'm gonna switch out my Trump org for Ivanka then. Okay, I appreciate that. I'm gonna stay positive and I'm just gonna switch it out with Trump. Oh, shit. And Dite-Method's not smart for, you know, the whole thing. But just, why not? Yeah, I'm just gonna be doing it. I'm just gonna be doing it.

There's a glimmer of hope. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Especially, yeah, no, that's a good point though. Even like the Immoluments clause I was talking about, that's that's suing, you know, Trump, but it's not suing Trump org. So true, true. Right. Yeah. That's exactly right. Yeah. All right, you guys ready for sabotage. Yeah. Yes. Alright guys, a huge story dropped Friday. Pretty much unnoticed about the Russian investigation into collusion because we were all focusing

on the Kavanaugh hearings, but I wanted to make sure you heard it. Luke Harding reported that the Guardian obtained evidence that Simon Cooke's was in contact with a Kremlin official in 2016 while donating to the Trump campaign. So do you guys remember back in episode 44, good old episode 44, when we reported a guy named Sam Patton was cooperating with Mueller, he put together plea deal. He was a lobbyist and an associate of Manafort and an employee of Cambridge Analytica, and he used an unnamed straw donor in the US to buy four tickets to the Trump inauguration for $50,000.

Remember that guy? Yeah. So he was cooperating back in May. The same week, Mueller was looking into Vexelberg, a Russian oligarch that donated $500,000 to the Trump inaugural from a Cypriot account into Cohen's slush fund at essential consulting. Vexelberg is the cousin of a guy named Intrater. And Intrater was a guy we thought might have made that $50,000 payment because he's a US citizen.

That's what it says in the criminal complaint. Well, Simon Cooke's is an associative intrader of Exelberg and Herman Kahn of the Alphabet Group. Herman Kahn is the father-in-law of Vanders-1. That's the lawyer who went to prison for lying to the FBI about his contact with Gates Roar, a bacher, and Manafort. So the Atlantic has evidence that Cooke's donated a substantial sum to Trump's campaign and communicated with Pavlovsky, a career-cremlin guy and former ambassador to Norway for Russia.

The Kukz donations began two weeks after the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting and totaled $273,000 to the Trump Victory Fund, which allocates donations to the RNC and state Republican parties. He has no previous history of giving money to any U.S. political causes. During that time, he was in contact with Pavlovsky, his buddy back at the Kremlin, saying, quote, I'm actively involved in Trump's election campaign, and I'm part of a group on strategy development. Unquote. Flash in the butthole.

The two tried to meet in Switzerland to discuss, quote, very interesting projects for Russia and the US, adding, quote, I hope one of them will materialize. Unquote. Kuk's attended a fundraising event and sent Pavlovsky photos of him and Rudy Giuliani saying, I was at dinner with Donald Trump.

I am in New York now. I think his chances are very good. In the photo is America's most respected former mayor. And they both had make America great again, that's all I. God. Kuk's became a US citizen in 1982, which allows him to make political donations. And he's been an oil man in Houston

working for Phillips, petroleum, and amaco. As we discussed, Mueller's been looking into Americans with ties to Moscow that gave money to Trump, including Cooke's. I'm saying Cooke's, it's KUKES, it could be Cooke's. I like Cooke's. Or Cooke's. Cooke.

I'll be weird. Never relax. Cooke's trying to say Cooke's. We got an email about not so many times. We did, yeah, I really figured them, I think. They were like, what man, a 40-year-old? Don't shame Cuck, that's what they want. Right.

He's been looking into Americans with ties to Moscow that gave money to Trump. That includes Cooke's Blavotnik and Intrater. All told, they've given nearly $2 million to funds that support Trump and their all-U.S. citizens. He's part of a group of oligarchs, Cooke's, is that Mueller stopped at airports, or not, I'm sorry, Vexelberg is, you know, the guys where he stopped their planes, their private jets when they landed and questioned him. On September 28th, 2016, Cooke's gave $99,000 to Trump. I love how these guys give like just under 20 grand or just under 100 grand

So it's gonna notice it wouldn't look suspicious at all And he attended another private Jewish fundraising event held in Manhattan hotel According to Ilya Zaslovsky and associate at the Chatham House Cooke's is a member of a quote soft power network of rich Russian emigres that Russia exerts influence over for plausible liability, like they use them instead of Russians themselves, because they're US citizens. So on November 9th, 2016, Kukz got an email from Pavlovsky that read, hello, Dr. Semyon, congratulations. Sorry, hello, dear Semyon. His name is Simon, but I think that's Russian is Semyon.

So on November 9th, the day of the election, he got an email from that guy at the Kremlin congratulating him. So I'm going to remove Papa Kushner and put Cooke's in my line up. Okay. I was wondering about Papa Kush. I was like, he does seem like he's got some skeletons in his closet, but I don't know if he's the biggest fish. They might just use him to get to.

He would be considered his family. Yeah, yeah So cooks cooks is a good one. Yeah. Yeah, that's the smart move. So peanut and his subpoenaing his bank records is essential Essential consultants. Yeah I mean the consequence ultimate consequence would be that Russia funneled money through him, right? That's what we're getting at here. Yep, yep. To the inaugural or whatever. Where did that $50 million go? And those guys gave over $2 million. And one of them is probably the straw man

that Sam Patton used to buy those four tickets. I mean, that just seems, I always think it might be Intrader could be Cooke's. But this is a big story. This is big news. Yeah, I hope that they do indict him because I just saw a headline from the Times of Israel that said that he is going to be actively involved in Trump election strategy.

Oh, shit. You know, if he had returned on Trump like in Trump game nickname, I think Kookie Kooks would be number one. Right? Kookie Kooks. Kookie Kooks. I think Kookie Kooks. Kookie Kooks. Kookie Kooks. What about my kiss? Oh. Is that how you say it? Kookie's. Kookie's I think cookies. I like that. It's better to feed because of my cookies. Oh. Is that how you say it? Cooquies. Cooquies. The cookies monster?

I like that. It's innocent. He's not. Girl Scout Cooquies. Yes. Which is Russian, dressed in Girl Scout garbs. The perfect disguise. That's how you infiltrate America. You go through the Girl Scout.

You all need a mean-thored myth. Alright guys, we're going to have a new segment right now. It's called Scotus. I don't know what else to call it. Scotus. Scotus. And we don't have a song for it, but that's okay. But I just wanted to take the time now to go over what happened with Kavanaugh in the week

because it was a lot. In fact, when I was typing this up or doing the script for this, but that's okay. But I just wanted to take the time now to go over what happened with Kavanaugh in the week because it was a lot. In fact, when I was typing this up or doing the script for this, I was like, oh my God, I can't believe this has just been the last week of stuff. So we left off Saturday, when shortly after we recorded Blasey Ford

and the Senate Judiciary agreed to a hearing on Thursday. There was a lot of back and forth, but Blasey Ford eventually had to agree to testify first when she wanted to go second, and they were not going to allow her to have any of her four corroborating witnesses testify. They settled on a Maricopa County prosecutor named Rachel Mitchell, who worked under Joe Arpio as a sex crimes prosecutor in Arizona, as the woman who is going to be questioning Blaziford on behalf of the Republicans. I imagine they didn't want the 11 old white men

to be grilling a victim of alleged sexual assault on television so close to the election, so they're chicken shits. Then Sunday night, a second credible witness came forward. Her name is Deborah Ramirez. She alleges that Kavanaugh took his pants down and shoved his junk in her face at a party

in a dorm room at Yale. She remembers him laughing at her when he was pulling up his pants and then somebody yelling out into the hall, a bright cabinet just put his junk in Deborah's face. So that's how she remembers who it was. She just remembers him laughing. Then another woman came forward via Michael Avenatti saying, Kavanaugh and Judge would participate in gang bans and that she had attended about 10 parties where guys, including Judge and Kavanaugh, would run a train

on women. Her name is Julie Sweatnik. Julie Annie and other Republicans tried to belittle her allegations by saying she was a bad person for seeing that and continuing to go to the parties anyway and not telling anyone. It's not the raping guys that are the bad part. It's that she's the bad guy in the scenario.

Ramirez had called, well, she had a scheduled call with Senate Republicans, but they didn't show up. And they just kept demanding all of her info from her lawyer upfront without meeting, which is to me a bad faith negotiation. Kavanaugh and his wife appeared Monday on Fox News where he lied to the American people, saying he was a legal drinking age when he was in high school,

but he was not. The drinking age in Maryland was elevated from 18 to 21 when Kavanaugh was 17. In fact, it was elevated on July 1st, 1982, which is an entry, matches an entry in his calendar of going to have drinks at a guy named Squeeze House. He said we went to have skis, which is short for brusquies, for douchebags at a squeeze house and with PJ and a guy named Smythe and a judge. Yeah. That's his July 1st. And it makes sense that he would go and get shit faced on July 1st when they raised the drinking age even though he was 17 at the time. But it makes sense. Like it was the last day before the law was enacted. So

he also said on Fox News, he was a virgin when he was in high school in college. And he provided a handwritten calendar, as I was telling you, of the time period in question, asserting that he couldn't have done this because it wasn't in his calendar. The Yale students, like all the, pretty much, the whole school did a walk out and mass, demanding an FBI investigation.

And the dean of Yale came out against his appointment. Monday we found out that Blaziford had hired Brawmwitch. And this is a powerful DC attorney who who wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary alleging they weren't negotiating in good faith about the Thursday hearing. And both Katz and Brawmwitch are working pro bono for Blasie Ford. Very nice. Also Monday, NBC interviewed Kavanaugh's Yale roommate, James Roche, who said he would Kavanaugh return drunk in Beligerent after hanging out with friends. He also said Kavanaugh was a notably heavy drinker and he would frequently become and coherently drunk and that he knew Debbie Ramirez and saw her as credible,

believed her story. Tuesday night, a political learned that Republicans did not have the votes for Kavanaugh. That was a secret admission by the Republicans Tuesday night that they didn't have the votes. Wednesday, a fourth and fifth accuser came forward anonymously and were immediately dismissed by Kavanaugh Trump and Republicans as not credible because they wanted to remain anonymous. That same day, if four people came forward to corroborate Blazifords testimony and they signed affidavits. Kavanaugh would later say that these witnesses denied the event occurred when actually they said they did not know about the event. And that's an important distinction because he said that over and over again on Thursday that even the people who were there said it didn't happen.

And first of all, he's saying that he wasn't even at the party, but then he said the people who were there, which means They were there Like what you can't have it both ways you can't say the people that were there said it didn't happen and also say We never went to the party. So is he he just saying my heating go to the party But he's not denying the party occurred, right? So the party because that would be crazy too He's like the party didn't even happen also the people that were there like I'm trying to figure out did he that's what he's saying Wow, yeah, it's super contradictory He's like the party didn't even happen. Also the people that were there. Like I'm trying to figure out did he- That's what he's saying. Wow.

Yeah, it's super contradictory. I mean, he was probably blacked out. I don't doubt he doesn't think it happened. Right. And it's like, if you're freaking alcoholic and you're getting blacked out all the time and you're sexually assaulting people all the time, I don't doubt that it's not something

that stands out in his brain. Mm-hmm. But it's also like, I was really frustrated sitting there watching the Democrats not how and him on that. Yeah. Letting a judge get away with misrepresenting facts that have already been said with the in

minutes of what he was saying that contradict it and we'll get to the test only here a second uh... there's a lot of wind up to it uh... wednesday uh... wednesday senator murkley filed a lawsuit to stop kavanaugh to stop the kavanaugh vote citing the constitutional advice and consent cause under that provision the president can nominate esc a SCOTUS justice without interference from Congress, and likewise, Congress can deliberate without influence from the president. Merckley contends that when Trump blocked all the documents from being released

and then had a private lawyer, Burke, label thousands of documents, committee confidential, Trump was violating the advice and consent clause by interfering with Senate deliberations. Pretty solid lawsuit. Yeah. Wednesday Ramirez and Sweatneck said that they would be willing to testify during the Thursday hearings, but as we know, the Senate did not allow that. Then we all watched the hearings on Thursday, or at least saw the highlights.

Blasey Ford was very credible. And there were parts of her story that really stood out to me. I think the historical clip, the one that's going to be played for decades, to come is when she said that the part that she'll never forget was when they were laughing at her. She was terrified and they were laughing at her expense. And that was also reported by Ramirez, by the way, who said Kavanaugh was laughing at her when he was pulling his pants up after shoving his junk in her face. So it's a common thread. When it was Kavanaugh's turn, he came out

noticeably rageful and emotional. He was crying and laughing and yelling, had little bump in the middle of his nose, was like all wrinkled up. He was red in the face and he was saying that this was just revenge for losing the 2016 election and revenge on behalf of the Clintons, which is a hugely political statement to make for someone who's supposed to be apolitical and fair. It was clear to me he was coached by

Trump on how to act like a giant angry baby man, and I was immediately struck by the fact that if it had been a woman that acted like that she'd be labeled as hysterical. Oh totally. After his testimony, American magazine, a Jesuit publication that had previously endorsed him withdrew their endorsement, and the American Bar Association called for a delay in the vote. But it was scheduled for 9.30 the next morning anyhow. So that testimony was insane. You know what we should do is we should have a female Reed Kavanaugh's testimony in the

manner that he said it, and see if people feel differently hearing it from a woman because they're totally right. They hear a man crying. They're like, oh my God, so much vulnerability. I feel so sorry for him. And when a woman cries, they're like, ah, typical. She can't keep her. She's crazy. No one is crying. Wait, probably bleeding from her wearers. Yeah, it's crazy. It's such misogyny. It's bad. And he was emotionally off the rails, man. He was not, he does not have the, he doesn't have the temperament. Temperament, to be a judge. Yeah.

Regardless of whether or not this happened. He's lied several times. He lied during his testimony when he said that he was of drinking age in high school. That is a lie. He lied to Congress. Yeah, he also lied about the definitions of what boofing means and devils try.

Yeah, well, amazing. It means boofing, he says, was flatulence when it's a kind of anal. Mm-hmm. Um, then he said the devils triangle was a drinking game. Like quarters. Like quarters. And they're like, really? How's it played? He's like, well, you take three glasses and you put them into triangle.

Have you played quarters? No. It's like quarters. Dude, he is so used to getting away with just saying whatever he wants. Like, someone like me could not be on a stand. No, being a woman, being black, all these things, and just say things. But don't even make sense. You got a try. Sorry. Go ahead. If you got up there and tried to say devil's triangle was a drinking game,

you'd be like, this crazy. Yeah, they wouldn't even listen to me. What is devil's triangle? A devil's triangle is a threesome with two dudes. Oh. You can't look at the other one in the eye Yeah, it's like an I full tower kind of position. Yeah, where you're just like yeah, I don't even think it's the position I think it's just the act itself. Yeah, two men one woman. Mm-hmm. Yeah, mm-hmm. Don't listen in the eye And he doesn't even want to admit to the fact that he was just a sexually active kid

I know he's afraid of like these things. I'll make an am look bad But he can't admit to like any of it like he's afraid of these things I'll make him look bad, but he can't admit to any of it. He's like, oh, I just liked beer. I was, I didn't have a problem and I got over. He's afraid of any little bit of truth coming out because the whole house of cars will fall down. Well, it's not just that, but I mean, if you think about how many people,

how many Republicans and judges went to Georgetown prep, they don't want this getting out either. You don't want an investigation into that. Yeah, the problem is so systematic with the people that are in power and so many of them having done so many awful things, like times are changing. They don't want to get wrapped up in it. Yeah. What was really funny was during Kavanaugh's testimony, someone from the House of Representatives

went into Wikipedia and changed the definition for devil's triangle. No way. They went in from the Congressional House of Representatives, like, account and said that it's a drinking game for Kavanaugh's buddies, that they actually put that in there. I think it was a troll. Okay, I was gonna say, I wonder if they're just kinda re-write things. Like, oh, now it means this.

No, if it said a drinking game with three glasses, played like quarters that would have been like a Republican trying to do, but the fact that it said a drinking game for Kavanaugh's buddies. Just them. I think it was kind of a troll. I think it was a bunch of an troll. I love it. My take away from watching him answer questions,

several that he refused to answer. And at some points, he got really indignant, especially with female senators, like Amy Klobuchar, when she's like, did you ever get blackout drunk? And she didn't, she wasn't accusatory with her question. She said, you know, my father's in alcoholic. He's been going to meetings, he's 90 now. He still goes to meetings. And he's recovering alcohol, so I understand what that's like alcoholic, he's been going to meetings, he's 90 now, he still goes to meetings,

and he's recovering alcohol, so I understand what that's like. And have you ever drink to the point of excess where you have forgotten periods of time or blacked out? And he's like, have you? Yeah, he's like, I fall in a sleep after I was really drawn. Have you ever passed out, passed out, but fall in a sleep, but not passed out?

He won't even be human, he won't be honest. Rachel Mitchell let us him that question. Yeah, but yeah, but he was yelling at Amy Clube, have you? what do you drink? Have you ever done it? And she's like I'm not This isn't my job interview, bro I already have my job Answer the question something else. That's interesting from the hearing or at least what came from it was when those those women in the elevator with flake Did you catch that? Yeah, we're gonna do that. We're gonna talk about that in a second. Oh, yeah Yeah, just're going to do that. We're going to talk about that in a second. Oh yeah, yeah. Because that's a monumental historical thing that happened in the elevator.

But I wanted to really quick just say that here's what I think of after watching him. And here's what I think he is. Here's who I think he is. I don't think he's a lifelong serial rapist. I think he was obsessed with impressing his male friends and did these things to do that solely to impress his friends, his buddies. Or as just who you were at the time, yeah, maybe he enjoyed it at the time.

But I feel like he stopped after he was done with college and went on to become an adult and he didn't participate in those kind of things anymore. He's still drunk. Right. But like, you know, but then there's also the thing where he was maybe on a boat in 1998 or something like that.

So, it could go either way, but I definitely think that where it started was him trying to be cool. Yeah, it is to a sense teenagers being teenagers, but not to say that it's okay for rapists to be rapists. Like, you know, or it's so good. Yeah, it's like the behavior is okay, but I think he did it to impress his face. Right. There's logic behind the idea that he felt like he he was just a part of the gang everyone was doing it

That's just what we did back then, but he won't admit now that what he did then was wrong because it'll take away What he wants right now. Yeah, he's just denying it all. Yeah, it's really set for a Supreme Court Just as nominee to be like that to be so just and I think that's why he was so mad at himself and crying Yeah, it's because he he knows he did those things and he did it to impress his stupid douchebag friends not because that's the man he really is on the inside. Right. And that's I think what was he was so angry about. Yeah, it's just projecting that on the rest of us. Very good point. Yeah. Yeah. No one's perfect, but you're right. The things that he's accused of. It's like we can find a better job for him. Yeah, there are more things that are going to be sitting on the DC District Court. You're absolutely not.

No, this is absurd. I think that's for someone to sit there who is simultaneously saying that he likes beer and is getting flustered and embarrassed and angry to the point where it's like, okay, clearly this guy has a drinking problem. And then for him to be so caught that he can't accept that there's even a slight possibility that his memory may have been absent at some points due to his drinking. to be so caught that he can't accept that there's even a slight possibility that his memory may have been absent at some points due to his drinking and saying he passed,

oh, I felt I fell on a sleep sometimes after I drink. You know, it's insulting. It's so transparent and see through and the double standard that when they listen to Ford, they say, would they believe her testimony, but they think her trauma, the effect it had on her memory has made it. So she has the wrong guy.

And then they won't even entertain the idea for a second. That's a trauma that alcohol does to your hippocampus. What was old rain? Something like this. Yeah, they want to entertain that. They'll even point out the fact that with Dr. Ford, they're like, oh, well, we think something very bad happened to you. We just don't think it's what you said. It's like, what do you mean?

You're saying she clearly was traumatized. Someone clearly did something sexually to her against her will, but you got the wrong guy. Also, we don't really, really what you're saying. It makes no sense. Yeah, and honestly, I think what might come back out of all this and we'll touch on this a little bit in a minute is you're not gonna be able to prove

that he did this attempted rape. You're not gonna be able to prove it he did this Attempted rape you're not going to be able to prove it But what you can prove is that he his lifestyle during that time is inconsistent with his testimony about who he was Yeah, and that he lied he lied when he said devil's triangle is drinking game He lied when he said booping is farting. He a lot like he's very telling too Why would you lie about things that college people do that's not? I mean, it's illegal to drink under age, but like these are things that he could just say. Because if he says Boothing is anal and a devil's triangle is a three way and Rennott alumnus means we, you know, I don't think he actually did anything with Rennott.

But the impression. I think he lied about it to be cool to his friends. Exactly. Just who he was. I mean, it's crazy. That's why I think that he probably actually did commit the assault because I feel like someone in his Position would be like well, yeah, I drink and I did this thing that people do when they drink and I passed out But I'm not that person anymore. I'm sure he did it's actually Too credible because you know she lists people who are at this party and that's consistent with an event

He went to in July on his calendar. She talks about talking, running six to eight weeks later, running into Judge at the safe way where he worked and he was not hung over. She talks about, I mean, these are really credible. She named PJ Smith and Squee and Judge before his calendar came out, which listed those guys going to have skis that one night at Squee's. Exactly. How would she know if he was a there and all these things Exactly, it's too corroborative

They may be able to find out the we'll talk about what the FBI is gonna investigate But I wanted to get back to what you were talking about About the two women who stopped Jeff Flake and an elevator I rewatch that so many times gave him a piece of their minds It was I think Anna Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher. Wow, I know their names. And I just I think that's it. Nice. I think that's correct. But they stopped Jeff Flake and elevator held the door and were like how can you do this? You're saying that you're basically saying that my assault means nothing and she's like look at me when I'm talking to you It was amazing. It was like really just it was hard Not, I'm not going to feel bad for him.

No, but he was struggling. He was struggling. Yeah, he looked very worrisome. And I think for the right reasons, I think he was conflicted like anyone should be. It's like, okay, I want to be someone who's by the book and we have evidence and, you know, corroborate that. But these women were just, they were telling him that no one believes me because there's no evidence in these situations, right? There's no, like quote unquote, like hard witnesses and he was like, I hear you. And then right after that, I mean,

who knows politically what happened behind closed doors, but it seems like that had a huge influence on his decision to go from saying yes to Kavanaugh and then saying, well, I might still say yes, pending in FBI investigation. That would do to actually say that in an interview that there were a lot of things weighing heavily on him. But I mean, he went and they went into the vote

at the not the full Senate, but just the group of 21 Senate Judiciary people. So basically, they vote to move it to the floor for a full vote. And during that time, as when Flake was talking to his buddy, Coons, who's a Democrat, who he's worked with very closely in Coons, was like, you know, he seemed visibly shaken up that that Flake has decided to vote yes. And they were in that

room. And Flake was saying, I'd like to call for an FBI investigation. And as he's doing this and making these announcements, Grassley is pushing the vote through, bro, call the role, call the role. And so they vote while he's trying to talk, they're voting, and then he does vote yes to flag votes yes, and all these women Democrats from the house came in and then all walked out simultaneously. Just like Cory Booker. And they were just fucking mad dog and grassly. They were just all these women standing up

at the back with their arms folded, just looking at him like, you motherfucker. The walk out was intense, and they were quarrelied with that time, quarrel-booker. And yeah, he did. And then, so they voted yes. And they 11 to 10 right along party lines to get Kavanaugh to the full Senate vote. And that's the point where Kavanaugh said, I'm not going to vote yes until there's an FBI investigation.

Or flaky mean. Flaky, sorry. What did I say? Kavanaugh. About Kavanaugh. You're right. Yeah. No, he didn't vote. It was, that's the way government should work. It was like a mini town hall. He listened, he didn't want to be seeing clothes in the door on these women, I'm sure.

Also, he probably really wanted to hear them. So the optics and then the actual concern together, like it was the perfect moment for a politician to be like, well, okay, since we're already here, you know, let's do this. And I think it worked. I mean, it did work. We have an FBI investigation and the FBI FBI began immediately, and the LA Times reported

late Friday night that they had already reached out to the anonymous women for questioning. And that's an important distinction, because it seemed that the Senate and Trump only wanted what they considered credible allegations to limit the scope of the investigation, and she shouldn't have been included in that. So it's interesting that the LA Times reported that, they also put a one week time limit on it. Experts have said that the FBI will be looking at people, places, and things, including everyone that's come forward, everyone that was listed

in this calendar, there was an entry, like I said, in his calendar for July 1st, which is the night that the drinking agent went from 18 to 21 in 1982, where he said he went to have beers with his buddies at squeeze house. And Blaziford says those people were there 18 to 21 in 1982 where he said he went to have beers with his buddies at Squee's house and Blaziford says those people were there during her ordeal and they were listed in the calendar so they're going to question all those people. They'll be trying to find

out which house they were at with Squee's house. If so, to Squee's house match the description of what Blaziford said in narrow staircase, a bathroom across from the bedroom, etc. And if it matches, that corroborates her story. They'll be looking at the calendar to see if the ink is 36 years old or not. Oh, good shins. Or if it was written last week.

Wow. They'll be corroborating his testimony about his yearbook, such as Boofing, referring to Flaxolence, the foe foe foe fourth of July, being about the way his friend said the word fuck. Did you hear that testimony? Oh, yeah. He's like, well, our friend's queen had a funny way of saying fuck fuck so we'd wind up like fuck. I'm like, you're so dumb. That is the dumbest live ever heard

That a devil's trying to lose a drinking game like we talked about and whether or not. He was pretty much a raging alcoholic. Yeah The FBI and the Democrats have said if you have any information on Kavanaugh You can go to your local FBI field office to report it very nice You don't have to wait for the FBI to call you. So. You know what else is beautiful about this? Kavanaugh and a lot of Republicans have been saying, well, this is, you know, a terrible situation and it's going to make a lot of good people not want to come forward as nominees

in the future. And Trevor Noah said, wouldn't it be amazing if like no judicial nominees were accused of sexual assault? Like isn't that something we should aspire to? Like that these people won't want to put their name for because they know that have a shady path. Cole Bear said that too. Oh yeah, it must have been him.

The Democrats up to their wily ways, trying to make sure nobody in government has ever committed sexual assault. What a bunch of dicks. So terrible. Yeah. It's pretty amazing what's happening right now. Like, it's, yeah.

They also need to call an expert witness or whatever they do in an FBI investigation I don't know how that works But someone that is a PhD in psychology just to explain his reaction Absolutely I mean the FBI will know too with all the their investigation Yeah, it's too I'd imagine but just an expert to be like you got the behavior of both of them. Yeah compare He was so defensive so defensive and she held it together so well

Even when a court booker was explaining to her like just how systematically wrong this is sexual assault in our country She was holding back tears clearly and she made it all the way through into that moment She could tell it was like getting to her But if she made it without actually crying and I feel like Kavanaugh at the slightest thing Which is like, ah and I'm like you don't realize realize how tough it is for women or any victim to come forward. And then on top of that, to not break down. Calvin R. was crying about lifting weights with his bros. Pregulation.

Pregulation. He was crying about football practice and working out with his buddies at Tobin's house. Yeah. Tobin's spirit guide. And I know this is probably the worst thing that, and this is not to say that he's not a perpetrator, but just saying that this is probably the worst thing that's happened to him.

And with privilege, I imagine, because Sarah Silverman said, like, people that are not privileged, they see through everyone's lenses, because they have to, you know, women see through men's lenses as well as their own black people. So forth. So I feel like with Kavanaugh, like, he's at the top of this totem pole of privilege, and he really feels victimized. It's like he really feels like this is a crazy attack, even though he knows he did things. I'm sure I feel like he just doesn't understand what is happening. He's very, he's very used to not being getting in trouble for those kind of things.

Right. Yeah. Very white, privileged, prep school. Um, he's confused. Issue. So yeah, he's hysterical. Yeah. must be bleeding from his wherever. I don't know. And to have like, I can imagine how I and this is not sympathy, just understanding. I can imagine that it's frustrating to be met with the reality that your memory cannot account for the things that you probably did exactly because you have a fucking lifelong drinking probably. No, he he paint himself as a boy scout went to church. I think he said something like, you know, as somebody asked him why church wasn't in his

calendar and he's like, because it's like brushing my teeth, I don't put brushing my teeth in my calendar. And I'm like, well, if you're a rapist, so is raping people. And you would put that in your calendar either if it's part of your daily routine. Such a good plan. It just he painted himself as this virgin, dorky choir boy. Basically, somebody credit code would call dorky, choir boy, basically, somebody credico would call it sanctimonious choir boy like James Comey, who actually probably is, I think, I think James Comey is the kind of guy in high school and college that cabins.

I wish his he were. No, that he's trying to make other people think that he get point. Good point. And it's easy when you're a white straight man. That's the, it's kind of the beauty of it is that you can paint yourself as anything you really want. Yeah, but Comey white straight man. It's kind of the beauty of it. Is that you can paint yourself as anything you really want? Yeah, but Komi white straight man was actually a boy scout.

You're right. He wouldn't have to, yeah, he wouldn't have to, you know, rely on his privilege to not have to face these kind of accusations. I don't think, but that's always just conjecture. But yeah. Anyway, guys, that's where we're at now. All right, guys, that's all we have. I really appreciate, again, all of the support. I know this has been a tough week, especially for survivors, both male and female to watch. Just have your testimony discredited and be disbelieved. And I think we all had kind of a moment when those two women confronted Flake and the elevator and just spoke their

minds and their heroes to me. So that's it. I've been AG. I've been Julius Johnson. I've been Jordan Coburn. And this is Muller She wrote. Muller She wrote is produced and engineered by AG with editing and logo design by Jelisa Johnson. Mark kick consulting by Amanda Rita at Unicorn Creative. Our digital media director and subscriber managers are Jordan Coburn and Sarah Hershberger Valencia. Fact checking and research by AG is support from Jelisa Johnson and Jordan Coburn. Mollershi Road staff includes AG, Jelisa Johnson, Jordan Coburn, Sarah Hersberg of Alencia,

Jessie Egan, and Sarah Lee Steiner. Our web design and branding are by Joel Reader with Moxie Design Studios, and our website is mullershiwrote.com. Hi, I'm Dan Dunn, host of What We're Drinkin' With Dan Dunn, the most wildly entertaining adult beverage-themed podcast in the history of the medium. That's right. The boozy best of the best, baby! And we have the cool celebrity promos to prove it. Check this out. Hi, I'm Allison Janney and you're here with me on What We're Drinking with Dan Dunn.

And that's my sexy voice. Boom. Boom is right Academy Award winner, Allison Janney. As you can see, celebrities just love this show. How cool is that? Hey, this is Scottie Bippin, and you're listening to the Dan Dunn Show and, wait, hold off. The name of the show is what? Alright, sure.

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

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

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

Ah, that's better. So be like Deed of Aunties, friends, and listen to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn, available wherever you get your podcasts. M-S-W-Media.