Jack - Mueller Report Pt. 18

Episode Date: September 20, 2019

In our continuing in-depth coverage of the Mueller Report, we are going to cover volume two, section two, parts K and L which include the Presidents conduct involving Michael Cohen, and overarching factual issues, pages 134 to 158.

They might be giants that have been on the road for too long. Too long. And they might be giants aren't even sorry. Not even sorry. And audiences like the shows too much, too much. And now they might be giants that are playing their breakthrough album, all of it. And they still have time for other songs.

They're fooling around. Who can stop? They might be giants and their liberal rocket gender. Who? No one. Disadvantaged pay for with somebody else's money. Thanks to Best Fiends for supporting Muller She Wrote, Best Fiends is a unique and exciting puzzle experience unlike other puzzle games out there.

Best Fiends updates the game monthly with new levels and events so it never gets old. And thanks to the app called Neighbors by Ring for supporting Muller She Wrote. If you want to see what's going on in your neighborhood, text AG POD to the number 55588 to download the neighbor's app today. That's AG POD to 55588. So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what I said. That's 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, in that campaign, and I didn't have, and I have communications with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin for 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 hailing. Like all members of the oldest profession, I'm a capitalist. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hello and welcome to Muller She Wrote and our ongoing special coverage of the redacted Mueller report.

With me today are Jalisa Johnson. Hello. And Jordan Coburn. Hello. So how are you guys? Good. Good. You just came back from an awesome vacation.

I think that's awesome. Thank you. Awesome vacations are awesome. Uh-huh. I'm excited for the smaller report. This is our first one since Lewandowski. Yeah Has Shudashary. Yeah, we already covered his parts in the report, but there's some relevant stuff for sure Particularly in the in the analysis and what obstruction of justice is. Mm-hmm. It's more so it's in the air in the air It's in the air to be yeah, we did a meet we did believe began impeachment hearings this week in the air. In the air. It's in the air too.

Yeah, we did begin impeachment hearings this week. And this is the last part, parts of volume, or well, section two of volume two. We're going to cover volume two, section two, parts K and L. And that includes the president's conduct involving Michael Cohen and then some overarching factual issues. And that's where some of the Lewandowski stuff might come up. We're looking at pages 134 to 158. So if you want to pause and go read it, cool. Otherwise, we'll pretty much read it for you.

We should note that in case you're listening. Well, into the future, as we begin the section on Michael Cohen, it was announced last week that Cohen has met with and signed a proper agreement with Manhattan District Attorney Sy Vance, who has picked up the hush money investigation into whether Trump Organization paid two of Trump's mistresses to keep their affairs with the President quiet in the lead up to the 2016 election. Cohen is in prison right now for those campaign finance felonies, and he has named Trump

as a conspirator in those crimes, but the case into Trump in the Trump Organization was handed off to the Southern District of New York by Mueller who didn't investigate it, and then it was mysteriously shut down when Bill Barr came on as Attorney General. And now Sive Vance has picked it up. And in that case, he has subpoenaed eight years of Trump's tax returns. And of course, Trump filed suit to block that. This week, he's got four suits that he's basically suing people who are trying to get his tax returns all across the government, all from...

See, just shining sea, from California to New York. Sacramento and New York, Manhattan District Attorney and then the House Ways and Means Committee and of course Congress is trying to get their information from the ZARS as well. So I just wanted to kind of give you that little context for whenever you're listening to this particular episode. So, because this is all about Cohen.

So the Manhattan DA picked up the case, as I said, he's investigating whether the Trump organization broke any New York state laws when it falsified its business records to reflect that their payments to Michael Cohen were for legal fees instead of a reimbursement for the hush money payment. Payments of $130,000 Coke Cohen took out a HELOC to pay those as part of his own pocket. There's more surrounding that story too, including the American media ink and the inquiry participated in a catch and kill conspiracy involving these two women, Stormy Daniels and Adult Film star Karen McDougall, or excuse me Stormy Daniels, the adult film star and Karen McDougall, a former Playboy playmate. An American Media Inc had signed a non-proscution agreement in the case so that they could provide information to the

Southern District without fear of criminal liability. However, AMI and the CEO David Pecker and lawyer Dylan Howard may have violated that non-pricing agreement when they allegedly blackmailed the owner of the Washington Post and Amazon Jeff Bezos. Threatening to leaked dirty photos of him and his mistress Lauren Sanchez that were apparently obtained by the Saudis from Bezos' mistress' brother's phone. If Bezos didn't publicly state that the inquirer and AMI were not politically motivated, they were going to release these photos. And so Bezos just went public on medium blue. The whole thing up said,

if you want to see the pictures, I'll show them to you. I'm being blackmailed. And part of a non prosecution is agreement is you're not allowed to keep crime. You have to stop crime. Otherwise, it blows it apart. So yeah, and that's not enough scandal for you.

Let's jump into the evidence outlined in volume two section two part K of the redacted Mueller report. Ready? Mm-hmm. Subsection 1, page 134, is about Trump's awareness and involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow Project. It covers the interactions with Cohen as a witness and how they took place against the backdrop of Trump's involvement with the Trump Tower Moscow.

As we know, until at least June 2016, the Trump Organization threw Cohen and Felix Sader pursued the building of a Trump Tower Moscow project in Russia. And the Trump org had previously attempted another tower in Moscow, but unsuccessfully. And in the fall of 2015, the Trump org signed a letter of intent for the project. The press got a hold of it in 2017, we all saw it. Or 2018, and by December, Saider was handling negotiations between Cohen and the Russians. Cohen told Mueller he spoke to Trump on several occasions about the project, so that Trump knew, and he was involved. And in May of 2016, Peskov, who was Putin's deputy chief of staff and press secretary, had invited Trump to Russia to advance the project, to give the speech, maybe meet with Putin and Medvedev.

Cohen also said that Trump told him he'd be willing to travel to Russia. If he could get the deal, locked and loaded, apparently a phrase Trump likes to use all the time. That's like the fourth time I've heard him say that particular phrase. I wonder where he picked it up. The anoray. No, I was going to say because nobody in his family has ever been in the military. Yeah.

It's not a, it's too many bone spurs for locked and loaded. Um, subjection two on page 138 is about Cohen's determination to adhere to a party line, distancing Trump from Russia. So Cohen told Mueller he wanted to stay on message, quote, unquote, which is why he told the media that Trump, the Trump Tower of Moscow negotiations ended in January 2016, rather than at least June, which is when they actually ended.

And Cohen recalled this was part of a script or talking points that everyone sort of agreed on and had developed with Trump and others to dismiss the idea of a substantial connection between Trump and Russia. So what Mueller is doing here is establishing that Cohen knows that he's not supposed to, he's supposed to keep a giant separation between Trump and Russia. And so as part of that, they sort of all sort of agreed with a wink and a nod that the Trump Tower Moscow project ended in 2016 of January. And in that vein, Cohen told Mueller he submitted false statements to Congress about the

Trump Tower Moscow. Cohen had entered a joint defense agreement with Trump and others who were part of the Russian investigation, and in the months leading up to his congressional testimony, Cohen spoke several times with Trump's personal counsel who assured him that the joint defense agreement was working well as long as everyone stayed on message. That's like a big thing. Stay on the lying path. Yeah, totally. And just keep on message. And Trump's personal counsel also conveyed

that Cohen was protected and would not be if he went rogue. And the president loves you. If you stay on message, the president has your back. So they've said this on multiple occasions. In August 2017, Cohen began drafting statements to Congress, the final version of which contained several false statements, including, first, the timeline for Trump Tower Moscow, second, that Cohen never asked Trump to travel to Russia and advance the project, despite overtures from satire to the contrary. Third, even though Cohen regularly briefed Trump on the status of the project, despite overtures from Seder to the contrary. Third, even though Cohen regularly brief

Trump on the status of the project, his statement said Trump was never in contact about the proposal. And fourth, Cohen said he never got a response from Peskov, even though he had a seriously long phone call and they talked well into the night on their beds with their feet up. And no, I'm kidding. But they had a lot of communication and it was two ways and they had a phone call about the project. So four giant lies in his congressional testimony, pretty much everything in there. Right. Giant lie.

Yeah. Just trying to cover up the entire thing. Yeah, exactly. And most importantly, Cohen's statement to Congress was circulated in advance around the joint defense agreement members and edited by members of the joint defense agreement and the lawyers. So do the lawyers, do they have any liability here if they can prove that? Yeah, I don't know.

They altered his statements. Yeah, they weren't suggested changes. I guess ultimately maybe just the responsibility would fall on Cohen himself since he's the person giving it to them. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. What do you think? Do you think they could possibly get in trouble at all?

I honestly don't. Because they didn't get in trouble. Like, no one had died at them. I'm not sure. And there's still some of them are still his lawyers, like J. Seculo and what a sweetheart he is. And Cohen told Mueller the reason he submitted false statements to Congress was to minimize links between Trump and Russia with the aim of limiting ongoing Russia investigations. And that's crucial, the aim of limiting ongoing Russian investigations. In October 2017, Cohen testified before Congress repeated his lies, and phone records show he spoke to Trump's personal counsel after the testimony on both days. And in September before he testified, Cohen orchestrated the release of his opening statements

to Congress, and he told Mueller that he did that to shape the narrative and to let other people know who might be witnesses that Cohen was saying, you know, basically putting it out there so if anybody else that could be a potential witness in this case knows the story, you know, so he's putting it out in advance. Okay, so anybody else needs the story. So, and he said he borrowed, to Cohen said,

he actually borrowed that technique from Kushner who released his opening statements because when Kushner released his opening statements to Congress, Trump was like, I like that, I like that, I like it a lot. And so that made Cohen say, oh, I should do that because the boss likes it. And then subsection four on page 144, Trump sends messages of support to Cohen. And this is all the public, I don't know, ask kissing that Trump does to Cohen before he starts cooperating with the government. So like in January, three months after he testified, the media reported Cohen arranged the $130,000 payment to Stormi. Mueller says he did not investigate

the hush money payments. So that's interesting, right? Because he handed them off to the Southern District. Yeah. So the Sivance case could truly just be like the number one fresh start that never even happened. Yep. Until now. Yep, because it was handed off. It was invest, well, Muller had the information, handed it off to Southern District, Southern District. It closed as soon as Bill Bar came on in April or March and in time frame in 2019 and now the men hat and D.A. has picked it up. And Trump's suing. So then anyway, yeah, so he three months after he testified, the media reported on that stormy

Daniels payment, but they are relevant. So even though Mueller didn't investigate it, those are relevant to Trump's interactions with Cohen. So he's not so much talking about the payments here. He's more like talking about how he treated Cohen publicly, if that makes sense, because that's where the obstruction of justice would lie. Because he treated him one way before he started cooperating and he treated him another way after he started cooperating.

We get similar language with Manifurit and Flynn. That's true. He's a face motherfucker. Totally. similar language with the Manifware and Flynn. Yeah, he's a huge face motherfucker. Yeah, totally. Totally. And on February 13th Cohen said publicly that in a private transaction he used his own personal funds to facilitate the payment, but neither the Trump organization or the president was party to the transaction.

And this is, this is hilarious because we know he came then out like much later and testified to Congress with the checks from the Trump Organization that paid him back for legal fees in the amount of $130,000 and that's part of what this sidevance case is now Because they're specifically looking at whether they broke New York state laws the Trump organization by falsifying their business records Saying that these payments were for legal fees and not a reimbursement for an in-kind campaign contribution. Yeah. And you aren't allowed to do that. It's against the law. So he also said he didn't get reimbursed for the payment.

But then again, like I said, on February 27, he testified that Trump told him to say he was not knowledgeable of the action. And on April. Sorry. Go ahead. It's supposed to be believable that they're just like that big of homies that he would spend that much money.

Yeah, that I was just without being reimbursed. That I would take a second mortgage out on my house to keep one of your multiple mistresses quiet. Mm-hmm. Yeah. I would do that for you guys. You probably realized that. Yeah.

I would do that for you guys too. Oh, same. Second mortgage house. If you ever knock anyone out, push my repayments. Oh, I know that's true. Yeah. Yeah. I got your back word a few days after the search. Well, so April 9th, that's when the big raid happened, right? The

Cohen raid totally unfair. They searched Cohen's hotel in his offices. He was living in a hotel at a time because I think his house was being remodeled. And Trump said, just heard they broke into the offices of one of my personal attorneys, because you know, the cops they just break in. He called it a disgrace and an attack on our country. Who was it that was like, oh no, it wasn't at Roger Stone that was like, no, they knocked on the door. Everyone was really nice. Yeah, I think it was. I think he said he was treated very like kindly throughout the whole ordeal. But that's in the redacted stone part of the like the last section because yeah, they were bet that's in the redacted stone part of the,

like the last section because, yeah, they were like broke in, broke the door down with AK-47s and stones like, no, they knocked and they were kind, they were very nice to me. A few days after the search, Trump called Cohen to check in, just checking in, bro. Asked if he was okay. And the president told him to hang in there

and stay strong, gave him a kitten poster, hang told him to hang in there and stay strong gave him a kitten poster hang in there hang in there baby and Cohen told Mueller that the other people in touch with Trump also reached out and and recalled so basically Cohen was like yeah like three of Trump's really good friends called me first one redacted for privacy purposes called me up and said he was with the boss in Mar-a-Lago and Trump says he loves you and not to worry. Another redacted person from the Trump organization told Cohen the boss loves you and a third redacted friend of Trump told him that the boss had his back. Boss boss boss. Very mobster. On April

17th Cohen began speaking with attorney Robert Costello, who was close with Giuliani. And the lawyer told Cohen that he had a back channel of communication to Caluity Rudy, that's what we call Rudy Giuliani, and that the channel was crucial and must be maintained. And on April 20th, 420 guys, the Times published an article about Trump and his treatment of Cohen and Trump responded

with a series of tweets that Cohen would never flip. Mike, he's a loyal soldier. So New York Times, here's what he said, New York Times, a third-rate reporter. They're going out of their way to destroy Michael Cohen and his relationship with me in the hope that he'll flip. They use non-existent sources and a drug-dub loser who hates Michael, a fine person with a wonderful family. Michael is a businessman for his own account lawyer who I have always liked respected. And most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble even if it means lying or making up stories. Sorry, I don't see Michael doing that despite the horrible witch hunt and the

dishonest media. L-O-L. Yeah, to all of that. I like how he puts flippin' quotes. Yeah. As if it's not like a real thing that happens all the time. Like, he doesn't want to acknowledge that it's something that could actually happen him. I feel like the reason he put it in quotes was to make it look like he doesn't use that word all the fucking time. Oh yeah.

Wait a throw off the scent. I also, it shows how delusional he is about like people's trust for, you know, like, ever his, his trust in people. Like, he really thought Michael Cohen would be loyal to him. Like, did he really think that? Or do you think he was just saying that? Because like, anyone that works with Michael Cohen would know that, I mean, a rational person would be like, this guy's not gonna ride with you. I just think Trump is so full of himself that he just like was like, yeah, this guy is, he's gonna be on my side.

Right, you're gonna pay for him. He's like, hell no, I've always hated you. Yeah, yeah, very Cohen like. Yeah, I don't know. The way I kind of see it is that Trump trusts no one because no one trusts Trump. And he just, he's just grown up thinking that everyone thinks it's very paranoid.

Everyone thinks the same way he does. Kind of how Nixon was. Like everyone's out to get him. So I got to get him first and I got to get him hard and I got to get him this way. And this kind of language, I don't think is Trump saying, like, I trust this guy and he won't flip on me. I think that this is threatening language.

This is, if you flip, the boss isn't going to love you. And that makes why you got all those messages. That makes a lot more sense. Yeah, equally stupid, but make a lot more sense. Yeah, equally as whole. More sense. Equally as whole. More sense. Yeah, that's kind of how I feel. He doesn't trust anybody.

He only does that as threats. You know what I mean? Do you know who the drunk drug-dub loser is that he's referring to? No. Yeah, I don't know either. I thought about that too. I was like, I feel like we should,

like at the time we knew, like when it happened in April. Yeah. Again, this is a great moment for me to imagine Obama tweeting at drunk drugged up loser. Yeah, yeah, totally. So absurd. What the fuck?

Yeah, we could take up step back and realize that this is the president of the United States. Oh my God. And then Cohen even recalled speaking to Trump's lawyer about pardons after the searches in his homes and said he was in an uncomfortable position and wanted to know what was in it for him. The lawyer told Cohen to stay on message. Again, on message, everything would be fine. The pardon discussion and that statement convinced Cohen that he would either be pardoned or the investigation would shut down

as long as he stayed on message and didn't flip on the boss. Does he make me feel such fear now? Anytime anyone ever says everything will be fine. Just reading this and knowing that, he was reading this, thinking, okay, everything's gonna just go to, I just gotta stay on message. Everything's gonna be fine.

And now this is being reported and he's fucking in prison. Well, that's clearly not what people tell you. It's never fine. Like when you're shot and they don't know if you're actually gonna be fine. That's one of those. It's gonna be your mind. It's gonna be okay.

Yeah, it's all gonna be okay. And look at me. I don't mean to have anyone that's actually been shot, but like that's how crazy this has for Cohen. His life is like dramatically altered and Trump is like, yeah, it'll be totally chill. You know, like, they're all pretty delusional, but Trump the most.

I still stand by that. And honestly, here's my beans. I don't think Trump's gonna pardon any of these motherfuckers. I think he's gonna promise and threaten and never deliver. Yeah, dude. He wants to be a one-man show as much as he possibly can. Yeah, no loyalty to anyone. Totally.

Fuck everyone. Yeah, one trick funny. He's like, you know, like when you're Uber, he's driver, or Dordashe, what a postmates, they pull up and they say they're waiting outside to give you something, but then they drive off. That's Trump with the part. He's like, I was here.

Oh, totally. They're like, yeah, I was here, bro. You know what, they probably were there. To be honest, I get high and I'm ticknaps and you know, I'm not blaming all delivery drivers. Not all right, but some of them I they might have a nice little scheme going on, but the idea is that like, you know, Trump's like, yeah, totally like I'll give you your partner. Walk out.

Do you have a knife with your food saying they waited? It's right. Exactly. And then they're eating your fucking blood. Like I had your part in dude. I waited five minutes. I tried to call you. You know, yeah, Trump's never gonna. He's outside in the pardon. Yeah. Who are the pardon's just eating your part in. I'm gonna call. I'm gonna call. I tried to call you. You know, yeah. Trump's never gonna. He's outside in the pardon. Uber pardon's just eating your pardon. I'm gonna call. I'm gonna call.

I'm gonna call Uber pardon's for you. That's great pardon pool. I'm gonna send Uber pardon's over. Pop in, everybody. Everybody's pardon mates. Who would be in pardon pool? Who'd be sharing that ride? Yeah.

Obviously, Manafort. Manafort, Cohen, Stone. That's the top. Yeah, that's how you can fit really, unless you upgrade. Well, you'd start with your cheap joint defense agreements, maybe bands, and then. You've got to get a pardon Excel.

Totally pardon Excel. Wow, guys, we did a total millennial reference. Way to go. Yeah, that was a good buffer right there. Ooh, a two out of three. That will be right back. Hey, everybody, it's AG. I spend a lot of time watching the news and politics.

That's my passion. I spend a lot of time watching the news and politics. That's my passion. I spend about 60 hours a week on it, steeped in the news about this corrupt administration, but it can get pretty stressful sometimes. And I like to take breaks. I like to meditate. I like to do yoga. And I have found this new puzzle game that I am totally in love with. It's a no-stress, adorable puzzle game called Best Fiends.

It's like friends without a R. It's totally casual. You don't need to be a gamer. And trust me, I am not a gamer. My last console was NES. But this is easy yet you can also make it as challenging and strategic as you want to. It's super fun, it's very relaxing. You collect little fiends and they all have different powers and they're very adorable. You can level them up and it's competitive but not stressful. It's no time clock on it. I hopped on for an hour the other night and I was, it was like meditating. I made it to level 21. I collected a bunch of cute characters that basically assist me in destroying evil slugs that have taken over the planet, which I like to imagine are like Mitch

McConnell and Jared Kushner. And it's really unique. Like I said, no pressure, no times. You don't have to like finish the level within a certain amount of times. Not like Tetris where they speed up at the end and you have a heart attack. And so there's no anxiety. It's more like a service than a game. And you don't have to take my word for it. It's got five stars on the Apple App Store and Google Play. It's been downloaded more than 100 million times globally. It's a simple match to repuzzle game,

but there is strategy. So like I said, you can be casual about it or you can get super engaged and competitive. And you can play with your friends online too. So engage your brain with fun puzzles and collect a ton of cute characters. They are five star rated mobile game. You can download it for free on the Apple App Store or Google Play. That's Friends Without the R Best Fiends. Check it out. You'll be glad you did. All right, welcome back. We have been going over the time period, the romance, the honeymoon,

when Trump was saying nice things publicly about Cohen But then don't don't don't go and started cooperating with the government I was July 2nd 2018 when public reporting revealed Cohen was willing to cooperate He would remember he was basically fishing. He's like hey everybody. I'll cooperate with you I'll cooperate with the government nobody was really biting remember. He's just like come on I want to he like realize oh, I'm so he was really trying hard. I remember that he seems like desperate almost to get a cooperation agreement going and After sentencing he was like that. Yeah, he still is. Mm-hmm He just signed a proffer like we were talked about the beginning of the proffer agreement

And so he was willing to cooperate. He added a lawyer that helped Clinton. That's when he, the name's not mentioned here, but we know it to be Lanny Davis. And a few weeks later, we learned about the, the voice recording Cohen made with Trump about Karen McDougall and he mentioned Weiselberg in there in Kevin, which I think is,

or Keith Davidson, as mentioned in there. And then the next day, after all that happened, Trump responded in July, inconceivable that the government would break into a lawyer's office early in the morning. I don't get that. I know, because all alcoholics are lawyers. Almost done heard of. Yeah, I don't know, almost done heard of. That's when they go.

Or is it early in the morning. Even more inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client, totally unheard of, and perhaps illegal. It's not in New York, single party consent. In California, we have dual party, you have to get the permission of the other person to record them, otherwise it's against the law, that I believe in New York, you don't have to tell them.

Single party consent. I can consent to record you, don't need your permission. DC, dual party consent. So anyway, totally unheard of. Perhaps illegal. The good news is that your favorite president did nothing wrong. So anyway, on July 27th, after the media reported that Cohen was willing to inform investigators that Trump Jr. told his father about the June 9th 2016 meeting to get dirt on Hillary.

The president tweeted, so the fake news doesn't waste my time with them questions. No, I did not know if the meeting with the meeting of my son, Don Jr. Sounds to me like someone's trying to make up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam. Taxi cabs maybe. He even retained Bill and Crook and Hillary's lawyer. Gee, I wonder if they helped him make that choice. So yeah, his attitude got a little different after Cohen started cooperating. After Cohen pleaded guilty and accused the president of directing him to make the hush money payments,

that's when Trump tweeted about Manafort. I feel very badly for Paul Manafort in his wonderful family, just as took a 12 year old tax case among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him, and unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to break or make up stories in order to get a deal in quotes. Such respect for a brave man. And that timing is important because it was just one day after Cohen made the allegations.

So this was as much a message to Cohen as it was to Maniford. And I think that's why it's in the Cohen section. Yeah. The Cohen section, aisle seven. Grass. On September 17th. Oh, that's almost a year ago. Mueller submitted his questions and writing to Trump.

And he attached Cohen's testimony and asked Trump to describe the timing. If he talked about traveling to Russia, when did they stop talking about Trump Tower Moscow, when did he stop being involved in it, whether he directed Cohen to stop discussions about the project? According to Mueller, Trump did not answer the questions.

I, he said, I had a few conversations with Mr. Cohen on the subject. As I recall, they were brief. They were not memorable. I was not enthused about the proposal. I do not recall in a discussion of travel to Russia in connection with it. I do not remember discussing it with anyone else at the Trump organization, although it is possible. I do not recall being aware at the time of any communications between Mr.

Cohen and Felix Sater and any Russian government official regarding the letter of intent. Sounds like a Dr. Seuss book or something. Yes, I do not like renegs in hand. Really dystopian Dr. Seuss not fully. So that's good. You get old books. It doesn't get better just so you know, that would imagine. I remember 29th Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow.

In the same day, Trump spoke to reporters and said, I decided not to do the project. I decided ultimately not to do it. There would have been nothing wrong if I did do it. If I did do it, there would have been nothing wrong. That was my business. It was an option I decided not to do. I decided not to do it, there would have been nothing wrong. That was my business. It was an option I decided not to do. I decided not to do it. The primary reason I was focused on running for president.

I was running my business while I was campaigning. There was a good chance that I wouldn't have won, in which case I would have gone back to the business. And why should I lose a lot of opportunity? I remember that. That's the thing about Trump and Trump supporters that I don't, I guess, talk about enough in my opinion is that he actually says things that are logical on the surface. You're like, oh yeah, why would you miss that?

I don't know that money. But then you think about like the moral ramifications that come with being president and like, I don't know why that gets skated over a lot, I think, with Trump supporters. So just like, yeah, let them do what he wants. And I'm like, so, but he lied to you for the whole year. Right. So more else, it's such a hard thing to discuss. That's why we're so polarized. Is that like, there's no one has found, there's no Martin Luther King Jr. of our time. That's like the only figure I can think that made

like this generational change when it comes to like, I don't know, politically speaking, I can't think of, I think Obama might have come close. Obama is close, but we need him to come back. I know you're taking a break. He's doing things. He, you know, fist bump. him to come back. I know you're taking a break He's doing things. He you know, if it's bad, he's out there. He's Instagramming, but yeah, no really we do need Obama to come back just like need it like Missy Elliott for

Her she was so good and she still is she won't came back Video I was thinking about how it's screaming and she was swinging. I literally had so many flashbacks. That chick who, she was a little girl dancing in there. Yeah, she's older now and she's queer. I was like, whoa, times have changed. Yeah, you develop opinions and you become an adult. Just to have an artist like Lizzo singing the way that she's singing.

Lizzo too. I wish we had that when I was young. Yeah, Lizzo said someone stole her food too, by the way, her postmates. I'm just talking about that. Her pardon to someone dangling a postman. She's still like her pardon. Yeah, but then she apologized. She was like, damn postmates. I'm just talking about that. Her pardon to someone dangling a postmate. She's still like her pardon. Yeah, but then she apologized.

She was like, damn, I forgot I'm famous. I used to put her own blast on Twitter. I thought, yeah, they sold Lizzo's food on eBay. Yeah, she forgot her own strength. I'm looking at the end of this tweet too. And it says, and why should I lose lots of opportunities? I wonder how calculated that language is because specifically, the phrase losing opportunities is something that white folks like his white base constantly is like

harping on. Oh, totally. An opportunity cost. Right. Well, like you're losing opportunity to black people or to like brown people in this country or to immigrants and then that's such a, I wonder if that was a smart integration for his messaging right there. If he has any team of people doing those sample polling or whatever they do, yeah, I would bet that was one of those keywords are like, this will resonate well, because the message

still comes across and you could say it a thousand different ways, but they chose that. Very specific. Yeah, Trump is capable of talking points, he doesn't stick to them, but every now and then you might catch it. Yeah, yeah It's possible. He's actually very good at messaging. He'll repeat the same thing over and over how many times if we heard Got your back the boss

Stay on message And that's behind the scene stuff, but to the public, you know who's gonna pay for the wall? Looks like he's very right. Wow. He's like the Chris Rock of politicians Chris Rock always repeats his setup. Yeah, just to just to make sure you get it, but I like that approach for Chris. That's great. And so he aside from that with the, you know, well, I should I lose opportunities language, which is that's very astute that you point that out. He also called Cohen a weak person and said he was trying to get a reduced sentence. He said, so here's the story. Go back and look at the paper that Michael Cohen wrote before he testified in the House or the Senate. It talked about his position. The president added, even if Cohen was right, it doesn't matter because I was allowed to do whatever I want during the

campaign. And again, back to the, I can do whatever I want. It's like, how dare you, in front of my right to be whoever I want to be. That's another thing that resonates with that community. And I'm sure we all on the service cameras and it with us, but we collectively, and I want to say liberals, but it's still a little more broad than that. Just rational people, people with empathy. Like we have this moral compass that connects us

and it leans towards, don't be corrupt. I mean, it's pretty simple. And for some reason, Trump supporters don't care about corruption as long as their feelings are met. So like, our feelings and corruption are pretty simple. And for some reason, Trump supporters don't care about corruption as long as their feelings are met. So like, our feelings and corruption are tied together. Like, you can't be corrupt and like, we can't feel good about it if you're a decent person. That's kind of how it works.

So it's like, there are a group of non-decent people really, which is hard to say, because obviously I'm biased and that's an insult to them. But I can't think of a better way to put it. It's like, how many ways do you like divide us or point out the differences at this point? It's really boiling down to the lack of decency and them being united by that.

Their whole lives have been told to be better and be best and be nicer and be more tolerant, but they're like, fuck you, this is my guy. Yeah, and along those lines of what you're saying, I think it's true that the idea that he's trying to convey to his base here is that you don't want the others to take away what yours. And because they view rights as pie, not something that everyone should just have.

Yeah. Because the way that conservatives see it is that if you, if you get rights, you're somehow infringing on mine. And Terracruz has exactly how he thinks. You're right. I love that now. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thanks. You Jordan. I was going to say Terracruz has exactly how he thinks. You're right. I love that now that you're from Sarge Shops. Employ more baking. Thank you, Jordan. I was going to say Terracrude has a very, just to wrap it up.

Yeah, he's a very similar quote that just like summed it up perfectly. He says, if you think someone's taken away your piece of the pie, just like make your own pie, like the world is your kitchen, like exactly like Drooman saying. And what are you doing? Yeah, like that whole idea of it's only one pie

is what gets people killed. It's like, let's just make more. We're creators. Yeah, it's not a zero sum game. Yeah. Yeah. And I totally think that you're right on that. And that's kind of how it started coming across after Cohen started cooperating. Because in the weeks that followed, Trump repeatedly implied that Cohen's family members were also guilty of crimes. And in December, when Cohen was sentenced to three years, Trump tweeted, this is after he gets sentenced for three years, none for lying to Congress, Mueller didn't recommend any time for him. He said, I never directed Michael Cohen to break the law. Those

charges were just agreed to him in order to embarrass the president and get him much reduced prison sentence, which he did, including the fact that his family was temporarily let off the hook. As a lawyer, Michael has a great liability to me. I don't know what that means. Yeah, it sounds like a threat in there somewhere. And that on December 16th, the president tweeted, remember Michael Cohen only became a rat after the FBI did something which was obviously

unthinkable and unheard of until the witch hunt was illegally started. They broke into an attorney's office. So why didn't they break into the DNC to get the server or cricket's office? God. And when privilege, I know. And when Trump learned about Cohen's upcoming testimony in January back then, he, that's January this year, 2019, he told a reporter on Fox, in order to get

his sentence reduced, Cohen says, I have an idea. I'll, I'll tell you, I'll give information on the president. Well, there's no information, but he should give information maybe on his father-in-law because that's one of the people you want to look at because where does that money, that's the money in the family. Thank you. I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt with anything unimportant,

but just that's a really good point. I think that Trump, another tactic he uses is saying, well, yeah, I did that bad thing, but look at that bad thing that someone else did. Obama never did that. I don't even know if Bill Clinton did that. I was too young. But I think the idea is that Trump is constantly saying,

okay, you got me, but that guy is also bad. So hey, what? It's part of his strategy that Roger Stone said, you know, when you're attacked, attack back and attack all their family and their friends. And then Trump goes on to say, and I guess he didn't want to talk about his father-in-law. He's trying to get his sentence reduced.

So it's pretty sad, you know, it's weak, and it's very sad to watch a thing like that. And all throughout January, Trump and Giuliani kept saying the same kind of stuff that he was lying to reduce his sentence to watch his father-in-law that he was using crooked Hillary's lawyer. That same month, Giuliani admitted Trump kept working

on Trump Tower Moscow throughout 2016. Remember that he went on the interview and he said, oh yeah, he did it through the whole end of the year probably. He was in the first half of the truth. Yeah, that was the opening night. That was opening night of the truth. And then he ended up walking back those statements, saying they were hypothetical only.

And that I think is one of those things that lawyers do where they say something and then, oh, strike that from the record or the jury will disregard, but it's already out there in the air. It doesn't work with real life, they're like that. But this worked. It's what lubing the truth is. And if you're new to the podcast, lubing the truth is when Giuliani would come out and admit that the president did something wrong, so that when the government comes out and

admits and says that this is wrong, they've already heard it. And so it's kind of old news. Oh, so some of the lawyers comes out and admits and says that this is wrong, they've already heard it and so it's kind of old news. Oh, so something like, actually, do you see that? What was that little year with Mana for? It's called drawing the smoke or whatever. Yeah, it's very common tactic. Yeah, so listen to this.

They'll be like, oh yeah, well, then aren't you, you know, where were you at four o'clock and blah, blah, blah? Doesn't that mean that you were home and then they'll go objection? Never mind, strike it from the record record but the jury's heard it already it's it's a it's a tactic that's impressive and that's what looming the truth is well when Rudy doesn't know how to do it. Drawing the sting not doing this stuff.

Yeah he doesn't do it as gracefully as in movies in the videos and then he walked it back. Well these are hypothetical situations. So that's all the evidence there so let's get started with the analysis of the three criteria for obstruction. And this is about the president's conduct toward Michael Cohen. It begins on page 153 and we'll start with the obstructive act. I'm just going to read it to you here. Mueller says we gathered evidence of the president's conduct related to Cohen on two issues. One, whether the president or others aided or participated in Cohen's false statements

to Congress. And two, whether the president took actions that would have the natural tendency to prevent Cohen from providing truthful information to the government. That's what obstructed the obstructive acts that they're looking at. So on the first one, whether regards to Cohen's false statements to Congress, while there is evidence described below, that the president knew Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project. The evidence available to us does not establish that the president directed or aided Cohen's

false testimony. Cohen said that his statements to Congress followed a party line that developed with the campaign to align with the president's public statements, distancing the president from Russia. Cohen also recalled that in speaking with the president in advance of testifying, he made it clear that he would stay on message, which Cohen believed they both understood would require false testimony. Yeah. How is it that you, you can create a whole campaign in which case you have to speak in a certain way to align with that campaign and it is lies. But that doesn't constitute directing him to lie.

That's such a loophole, right? Like I understand how you can't prosecute someone for creating a campaign that has a certain kind of messaging that you expect someone to adhere to. But that's just one of the ways that they have been able to insidiously do this kind of thing. That's actually kind of brilliant. That's a brilliant defense. Very true.

It's just a strategy. It's just a strategy. It's just a strategy. It's just a brilliant. That's a brilliant defense. Very true. It's told to stay on brand with our campaign and our campaign is lies, but you can't get us for that. Yeah, especially if Trump didn't tell him directly, if the lies came through the lawyers, then it's like, then he's removed. And that's probably exactly how Pence protected himself too. Wow, they are protected from the start.

Yep, and so Cohen said that he and the president did not explicitly discuss whether Cohen's testimony about the Trump-Taramosco project would be or was false, and the president did not direct him to provide false testimony. Cohen also said that he did not tell the president about specifics of his plan testimony during the time when his statement to Congress was being drafted and circulated to members of the Joint Defense Agreement. Cohen did not speak directly to the president about the statement, but rather communicated with the president's personal counsel.

That's exactly what we were just talking about. As corroborated by phone records, showing extensive communications between Cohen's and president's personal counsel before Cohen submitted his statement when he testified before Congress. And why they didn't look into the lawyers for this. I'll never know. Right. I mean, if someone's kind of going down, I mean, someone has to go down, right? Why wouldn't they be the ones? No, it never has to go down. But if someone should go down in this, I mean, if someone's gonna go down, I mean, someone has to go down, right?

Why wouldn't they be the ones? No, it never has to go down. But if someone should go down in this, because if Trump didn't do it, and these lawyers directed him to do it, the lawyers should be held accountable. Yeah, yeah, I mean, if someone should go down because there was a crime committed, yeah.

But I understand what you mean, and they can go either way. Yeah, no, you're right, yeah. Yeah, I still feel like the lawyers are probably, well, he is one of the lawyers But there's more out of magic. Trump's lawyers. They should be I think that they should They should probably have their licenses Reflected because Cohen going down isn't really her Trump if he'd you know, I don't know it doesn't seem to be enough

Yeah, and Cohen recalled in his discussions with the president's personal counsel on August 27th the day before's statement was submitted to Congress, Cohen said there were more communications with Russia and more communications with Canada Trump than the statement reflected. Cohen recalled expressing some concern at the time and according to Cohen, the president's personal counsel who did not have firsthand knowledge of the project responded by saying there was no need to muddy the water. It was unnecessary to include these details because the project did not take place and

the Cohen should keep his statement short and tight. Not elaborate, stay on message, and don't contradict the president. Cohen's recollection of the content of those conversations is consistent with direction about the substance of Cohen's draft statement that appeared to come from members of the JDA, not Trump himself. So, for example, Cohen omitted any references to his outreach to the government officials' setup, and then set up a meeting between Trump and Putin during the United Nations United Nations grand assembly and Cohen believed it was a decision of the JDA to delete the sentence the building project led

Me to make limited contacts with Russian government officials. So this is all the JDA and so You know the Trump has his message and if you down here conspire to stay on his lying message, it's not his lying message as fault, according to, you know, criminal law. Yeah. This is another example of a phrase that you should never get on board with. The first one being everything's going to be fine, and the second one being, let's not muddy the waters. I know I hate that. It's like, oh, you mean you don't want more details?

Yeah. You mean the thing that clarifies things and makes us everyone knows what the fuck is going on. Okay, sure, yeah, let's not talk about that. Don't talk about don't matter the waters. And everything is going to be fine. The president's personal counsels decline to provide us with, this is back to the Mueller report, decline to provide us with his account of the conversations with Cohen. And there is no evidence available to us that indicates the president was aware of the information Cohen provided to the president's personal counsel. The president's conversations with his personal counsel were presumed or presumptively protected by attorney client privilege and we did not seek to obtain the

content of such communications. So that's the crux there. They couldn't ask Trump if he told his lawyers to tell Cohen to lie because of attorney client privilege. The absence of evidence about the president and his counsel's conversation precludes us from asserting what if any role the president played. So no obstructive act there in getting Cohen to change his testimony. Second, we consider whether President took actions that would have a natural tendency to prevent Cohen from providing truthful information to the criminal investigators or to Congress.

And I think this one is a yes. Before Cohen began to cooperate with the government, the President publicly and privately urged Cohen to stay on message and not flip in quotes. Cohen recalled the President's personal counsel telling him he would be protected as long as he didn't go rogue in the days and weeks to follow April 28th, the April 2018 searches of Cohen's home and office. The president told reporters, Cohen was a good man, a fine person, wonderful family, who I've always liked and respected. Very different from how he talked about his family after he flipped.

Privately, the president told Cohen to hang in there and stay strong. People who are close to Cohen and the president passed messages to Cohen that the president loves you, the boss loves you, everyone knows the boss has your back. Through the President's personal counsel, the President also had previously told Cohen thanks for what you do. After Cohen provided information to the media about payments to women that, according to Cohen, both Cohen and the President knew were false. At that time, the Trump Organization continued to pay Cohen's legal fees, which was

important to Cohen. And Cohen got me into this mess. Yeah, which was important to Cohen. Cohen also recalled discussing the possibility of a pardon with the president's personal counsel, who told him to stay on message, everything will be fine. The president indicated in his public statements that a pardon had not been ruled out. He also stated publicly, most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble, but that he didn't see Michael doing that. And after it was reported that Cohen intended to cooperate with the government, the President

accused Cohen of making up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam, taxi cabs maybe, called Cohen a rat on multiple occasions publicly suggesting Cohen's family members had committed crimes. The evidence concerning the secretive events could support an inference that the president used indictments in the form of positive message in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate and then turn to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or to undermine Cohen's credibility once Cohen began cooperating. So that I think is a yes. So no on the lion to Congress that Trump directed it, yes, obstructive act on you trying to get Cohen to change his testimony to the card.

That sounds like the right interpretation of that. All right, we'll be right back with the nexus to an official proceeding intent and part L, the overarching factual issues. Hey, this is A.G. from Muller Sheerot, and I'm happy to announce the neighborhood watches back. And it's way more convenient and it's high tech. And so you don't have to go to those meetings and take time out of your schedule.

It's super convenient. Because I remember growing up, your neighbors would meet like in your parents' garage once a week, talk about things that were going on the neighborhood, play cards, keep each other safe. Well now the neighborhood watch is in an app on your phone and it's called Neighbors and it's by Ring and that's the company behind those video doorbells. With the Neighbors app you receive real-time safety alerts from your neighbors and your neighborhood.

It helps you stay informed about what's going on and it's totally free. You don't even need to own a Ring device to participate. I downloaded the free app. I was able to set my neighborhood area using a really easy map filter. We kind of live in this little peninsula. So that's kind of the area I want to watch. And it's been great. I've gotten to know my neighbors. We've been able to recover lost pets and missing packages. And I know about any safety alerts nearby. So if you want to see what's going on in your neighborhood, text AG pod to the number 555888 to download the neighbor's app today. That's AG Pod to 555888. Make your neighborhood safer today with the neighbors app by ring. You'll be glad you did.

All right, welcome back. We're going to conclude this here with the bottom of page 154 with Nexus 2 and official proceeding, which states the president knew the special counsel office, special counsel's office in the US attorney for Southern District were investigating Cohen's conduct. So yep, we have an Nexus 2 and Official Proceeding. That's easy peasy. As for intent, in analyzing the president's intent in actions towards Cohen as a potential witness, there's evidence that could support the inference

that the president intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government, because Cohen's information would shed adverse light on the President's campaign period conduct and statements. Cohen's false congressional testimony about Trump Toromosco was designed to minimize connections between the President and Russia and help him limit congressional Department of Justice Russia investigations. And the goal was that in the president's interest as reflected by the president's own statements.

During and after the campaign, the president made repeated statements that he had no business in Russia, no deals, and Cohen knew, and as he recalled communicating with the president during the campaign, Cohen's pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow project cast out on the accuracy and completeness of his statements. So, yes.

And in connection with his guilty plea, Cohen admitted that he had multiple conversations with Trump to give him status updates about the Trump Tower project, that the conversations continued through at least June 2016, and he discussed with Trump possible travel to Russia to pursue the project. The conversations were not offhand according to Cohen, because the project had the potential to be super lucrative. And in addition, like $100 million at least, I think we heard. And then he was also offering that whole top floor penthouse to Putin that came out later.

And in addition, text messages to and from Cohen and other records further establish that Cohen's efforts to advance the project did not end in January, but more like May or June. And Cohen was considering the timing for trips to Russia by him and Trump in connection with the project. So that's why they were scheduled around that time. The evidence could support an inference that the president was aware of these facts at the time of Cohen's fall statements to Congress. Cohen discussed the project with the president in early 2017.

Cohen recalled in September the day after he released to the public his opening remarks to Congress that the president's personal counsel told him the president was pleased with what Cohen said. And after Cohen's guilty plea, the president told reporters he had ultimately decided not to do the project which supports the inference that he remained aware of his own involvement in the project and the period. So oopsie. In subsection two, the president's public remarks following Cohen's guilty plea also suggests the president may have been concerned about what Cohen told investigators about Trump Tower Moscow. At the time, Trump submitted written answers to

questions from Mueller about the project and other subjects. The media had reported that Cohen was cooperating with the government, but Cohen had not yet pleaded guilty to making false statements. Accordingly, it was not publicly known what information about the project, the Cohen had provided to the government. And in his written answers, the president didn't provide details about the timing and substance of his discussions with Cohen and gave no indication that he had decided to no longer pursue the project. Yet after Cohen pleaded guilty, the president all of a sudden remembered. He publicly stated he had personally made the decision to abandon the project. The president then declined to clarify the seeming discrepancy to our office or answer additional

questions. And the content and timing of the president's provision of information about his knowledge regarding Trump Tower is evidence that the president may have been concerned about the information that Cohen could provide as a witness. So yes, yes, yes. And then subsection three, Trump's concern about Cohen cooperating may have been directed at the Southern District of New York investigation into other aspects of the president's dealings. Outside of Trump Tower, Moscow, there's also evidence the president's concern about Cohen

cooperating was based on the president's state of belief that Cohen would provide false Testimony against the president. So when he always kept saying, you know, they'll just make up a story That shot he shot himself in the foot there President tweeted that man afford unlike Cohen refused to break and make up stories and after Cohen pleaded guilty To making false statements to Congress the president said Cohen's trying to get a reduced sentence So he's lying about a project that everybody knew about, that the president also appeared to defend the underlying contact, conducts saying even if Cohen was right, it doesn't matter because I was allowed to do whatever I wanted.

As described above, there is evidence. The president knew that Cohen had made false statements about Trump, Tower Moscow. So his big mouth got him in trouble. And he did so to protect the president and minimize the president's connection to Russia during the campaign. And finally, Trump's statements insinuating members of Cohen's family committed crimes after Cohen began cooperating could be viewed as an effort to retaliate against Cohen and shill further testimony.

You know, made up stories in order to get a deal for himself, get his wife and his father and law off Scott free, all those statements that he made. It's also possible that the president's mention of Cohen's wife and father-in-law were not intended to affect Cohen as a witness, but rather were part of a public relations strategy aimed at discrediting Cohen and deflecting attention away from the president. But the president suggests that Cohen's family members committed crimes happen more than once, including just before Cohen was sentenced. When he said at the same time, the president said,

should in my opinion serve a full and complete sentence. And again, just before he was scheduled to testify before Congress, and the timing of the statement supports an inference that they were intended at least in part to discourage Cohen from further cooperation. So his compulsion to talk when things go bad and the things that he says are what has gotten him in trouble for the intent here.

And that's basically the analysis. So it sounds like we have an obstructive act, but not in the changing of the joint defense agreement statement to Congress, but in the way that Trump spoke about Cohen, we have a nexus to a proceeding and we do have intent. So this meets all three. So there's two acts in here. The act of, of, of, of, you know, changing Cohen, changing his testimony and Trump directing him, quote unquote, to do so.

And then the other act is, you know, the trying to get him to dangle pardons and be nice to him when he's doing the right thing and then being a jerk to him after he flips. And so that would affect what he says. So there's kind of two acts in this one thing. And one of them doesn't meet all three criteria. The other one does. Cool.

Yeah. Hopefully side-vans could get in on that. Yeah, and I think that he's going to get a lot of information too. I remember after Cohen went to jail, he's like, I got a lot more stuff. I have more stuff. It's essential. And then we have this last part here, part L, and that's the overarching factual issues. Although this report does not contain traditional prosecutorial decisions or declination decisions,

the evidence supports several general conclusions relevant to analysis of the facts concerning the president's course of conduct. So number one, three features of this case render it at a typical compared to heartland, the heartland obstruction of justice prosecutions brought by the Department of Justice. First, the conduct involved is actions by the president. Some of the conduct did not implicate the president's constitutional authority and raises garden variety of structure of justice issues. Other events we investigated, however, drew upon the president's article to authority which raised constitutional issues that we will address in volume 2,

section 3b. A factual analysis of that conduct would have to take into account both the president's acts were facially lawful and that his position is head of the executive branch provides him with unique Empowerful means of influencing official proceedings subordinate officers and potential witnesses Second many obstruction cases involved in basically what that's saying is this is unique because it involves the president and some of this is run to the mill obstruction stuff but others we have to address because he's the president and we'll do that in section three part B. Second many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had improper obstructive purpose. But I think what he's getting at here is that there wasn't

an underlying crime here. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish the president was involved in underlying crime related to Russian election interference, but the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the president's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events such as advanced notice of WikiLeaks release hacked information on the June 9th 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials in Russia could be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign, or his family.

So while there's basically saying you don't need an underlying crime to be guilty of obstruction of justice, and third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government, and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view. While it may be more difficult to establish that public facing acts were motivated by corrupt intent, the President's power to influence actions, persons and events, is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through the use of mass communications. And no principle of law, this is important. No principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of instruction statutes.

I like that. That's a good paragraph to point people to when they make that argument. Yes, because we hear that a lot, right? I know. He did it out in broad daylight. You can't, like, people only rob banks at night. I think we've had that discussion. So that, I think that's a really important point. And then number two here, although the events

Mueller investigated involved discrete acts, IG, the president's statement to Comey about the Flynn investigation, his termination of Comey, his efforts to remove special counsel, it's important to view the president's pattern of conduct as a whole. The pattern shed light on the nature of the president's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. Subsection A here underpants A. Our investigation found multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations. enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations. These incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the president sought

to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions range from efforts to remove the special counsel, to reverse the effect of the attorney general's recusal, to attempt a use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation, to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses and the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing these acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGand

to have the special counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell Attorney General to limit the scope. A temporal connection suggests both acts were taken with a related purpose, with respect. So now we're getting into synergy. These acts aren't just the acts alone, and even though they rise to the level

of obstruction of justice on their own, when you take them in conjunction with another, you're even pumping up even more how obstructiony these acts were. The president's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president

declined to carry out orders or to accede to his requests. Comey did not end the Flynn-Flynn investigation, which ultimately resulted in Flynn's prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. McGann did not tell the acting attorney general that the special counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the president's order. Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the president's message to sessions so that he could combine the Russian investigation to future elections only, and McGann refused to receive from his recollections about events surrounding the president's direction to have Mueller fired, despite the president's multiple demands that he do so.

And consistent with that pattern, the evidence we obtained would not support potential obstruction of justice charges against the president's AIDS and associates beyond those already filed. Being, considering the full scope of the conduct we investigated, the president's actions can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in presidential motives. In the first phase, before the president fired Comey, BC before Comey, the president had been assured that the FBI had not opened an investigation of him personally. The president deemed it critically important to make public he was not under investigation and he included that information in his termination letter to Komi after efforts to have it not on there. Like no

we shouldn't put that rush of stuff in there. Oh do it. Soon after he fired Komi the president became aware that investigators were conducting an obstruction of justice inquiry into his own conduct. That's after Komi. The awareness marked a significant change in the president's conduct at the start of the second phase of action. The president launched public attacks on the investigation

and individuals involved who could possess evidence adverse to the president. While in private, the president engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. So for instance, Trump attempted to remove Mueller. He sought to have sessions on recuse himself and limit the investigation. He sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 Trump tower meeting. He used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information

and cooperate with the government. And judgments about the nature of the president's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence, and that's an important statement right there. That's it for the obstruction and overarching facts and volume two. So I really love that last statement, though. The judgment about the nature of the president's motives

during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence. Yeah, me too. It's, the hole is greater than the sum of the president's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence. Yeah, me too. But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Right. It is also a bit cryptic as well, which is interesting. Yeah. Right?

Because it's like, well, you're not saying that he should be indicted. You're just saying we should not take any of this lightly, but to what end? Yeah. And he's met multiple criteria on multiple individual facts, but when you look at it totally, it's way worse than these individual criminal acts. And that they rise to the, you know, meet all three criteria. Yeah, it's a bit of a cliffhanger. Yeah.

It is. That's exactly what the Mueller report was. Yeah. We just, like, like Jalisa says, threw the mic to Congress. And so next week, we're going to be going over sections three and four, which include the legal defenses to the application of obstruction of justice and the ultimate conclusion. And the conclusion for the whole thing is like five sentences long. We make it to the back matter in the next episode.

We'll see how long it goes. We'll see how we're feeling. But we've only got, you know, maximum two episodes left to the back matter in the next episode. We'll see how long it goes. We'll see how we're feeling But we've only got you know maximum two episodes left to the Mueller report. So any final thoughts? Yeah Just hearing all this it was making me think about the fact that I'm always wondering what the solution is right We always discuss like potential solutions and sometimes I think it's changing the law You know because Trump was able to just escape by by knowing the law Maybe tweaking

it with throwoff criminals like him. But at the same time, I see the law applied, I guess, more reasonable laws are abused in other circumstances, like with a poor person or a brown person. So like, the problem still seems to bowl down to not just like the laws as they're written. But the people in power, like, it's, I guess, I've it points to Trump again being the symptom and not just the source. Yeah. He's really fucking annoying symptom. And you're right. That's exactly what it says on the outside of the Supreme Court in the United States is equal justice under the law for everyone, everyone. He's just this under the law. And I think one of our serious problems, and I

hope that somebody brings this up in a dem debate, is we have to get rid of that office legal counsel memo that says you can't indict a sitting president. For sure. Yes, that's one. That's one. That's one. That's one.

That's one. And then all of a sudden, what you're getting to is the volume one stuff. It shouldn't, there should have been a crime in volume one. Yeah, and not just a crime, but just like if the crimes committed, then that person needs to go. Like there's a sense of corruption here that the law

doesn't seem to have a, you know, actual barrier to that. It's like the bigger problem. Well, we do have it. It's called Congress and it's called impeachment. And it is the only remedy to remove a president. I guess what I mean is the people. Yeah, the overall body of people in general, even if there's like

Democrats that play it too safe. I think that's problematic as well. I'm with you on that like what Kushner and junior and ban is just letting them get by with this because you know, or hands are tied. It's like, well, you know, I don't know, untie your hands like you're Congress. I don't know. I get that there are barriers to this and the whole idea is like they're supposed to be checks and balances, but at a certain point, Democrats have to say, well, the game is not being played as it should have been. So we are, we have a moral obligation again, it's back to morality. How do you can't force that on someone?

So, you know, here we are. Yeah. And we also have to remember that there is an entire parallel counterintelligence investigation into these guys that they may be guilty of some stuff and we're just never gonna know about it. That's also depressing. Yeah, cause like what are the punishments for that? Right, I just hope that like Warren says, big structural change.

Yes. And Bernie, he doesn't say that exact phrase, but he says the same thing. Yeah, I'm all for it. We need it. I know it sounds cheesy, we need a revolution. And I don't have all the answers. I'll get back to you guys.

I don't know. I can't imagine. Let's try voting. Oh sure, I get a least get, we need a revolution. And I don't have all the answers. I'll get back to you guys. I don't know. I can't imagine. Let's start voting. Oh sure. If we can at least get half a country to vote. Lately, I also feel like we need to do something more than that, but I agree that voting's important. If we could get more than 19% of this country

to show up and vote, I mean, I don't know how you're gonna get a revolution going. If nobody even walked to the polls and cast a vote. Well, I think voting's a part of it. I don't think it's the whole revolution, right? Of course not. Yeah, that's what I mean. No.

It's all right. Talking about what unfairness of sentencing, I think basically of like, why collar crimes and, I don't know, blue collar crimes. Oh, yeah, that's what they, yeah. Yeah. I think a huge difference there is why collar crimes, proving intent is so much more difficult than being like

We found your weed bowl. It's right here. I know because I think some I'm not just because the crimes are the crimes Right, I mean some people get sprinkled like drugs though on them though, right? That's not just a stereotype It's like one okay, let's talk about people who are just guilty of the crimes. Yeah I'm somebody who's guilty of tax fraud is way harder to prove than somebody who is guilty of having weed in their house. Yes, and my point is that they say they smell it, right? Yeah. My point is that there's so much inherent privilege, and I brought this up in our live show, and that you literally have to be a wealthy elite even commit these crimes. And once you do commit them, it's so hard to prove because it's so fucking shady and it's not tangible. That's on the...

You only have documents which are, and you probably don't even have documents a lot of the time. So, Mueller didn't have documents that he needed to get but he couldn't get because of whatever language that... They're lucky. ...resourced.

...trump would try to claim. Yeah, it almost seems like that's the part that's by design. If it didn't start that way, I think there's enough corruption and money and power at this point to have abuse that so much to where it's like, hey, if people like us get in trouble, let's make it so the law is way easier on us. I think that's something that's probably just been developed.

No, but the complexity of it, too. I mean, like trying to prove that there was a broader conspiracy or coordination with intent to hack our elections is a lot harder than trying to prove I stole a television from CS. Yeah, and also the evidence is easier to not only prove, but to your point to also fabricate and frame someone else with. I think it's subjective, right? Yeah, I give what you're saying.

In this case, it actually is true that it's harder to pinpoint these specific crimes that we just discussed. And then I think to someone who, like you said, might have stolen a TV and then you're like, well, it's easy to prove they stole it or not, right? And I'm like, well, that's where corruption comes in a play and people decide whether or not evidence is evidence. Oh, yeah, I'm not talking about the corruption

of the justice system. That's what I was talking about. Yeah, that's just what I'm on. I'm sorry, I'm just going on. I think what Jordan's talking about is the ease of proving crimes in a perfect justice system. Yes, just exesentially. You have to be super rich to even start to commit a white collar crime and that makes it easier for you to get off the hook. And that whole thing sort of subsumes together and it makes for this extra synergistic racism in the system.

Yes. Then you add corruption to it and that's a whole other double- Yeah, well the reason I was the corruption, yeah, yeah. Yeah, what I was saying is, you know, previously referencing again in a perfect quote-unquote justice system, now talking about a more corrupt justice system, like you were talking about with something that's like physical evidence, it is a lot easier to physically plant a pipe in front of another person. As opposed to taking someone's data or something.

Exactly. Or trying. I don't even know. Yeah, I guess you're right about that on the surface, but I also feel like maybe there's a reason why it's like, you're right about that. And then also maybe it's like, it makes the corruption easier. It makes the corruption easier. Totally.

It makes the corruption easier. And I feel like there are decisions that are being made in order for that to be the case. Like, yeah, you could actually tweak it, but then forensic accountings will have to come in, you know, like that would have to be a whole thing. But yeah, it's possible. Like, you're right. And putting a pipe down is simple. But I also feel like, yeah, I guess what I'm pulling down is to that whole big structural

change thing. It's so hard to pinpoint into a specific example. But I think we're all in agreement with the idea that the corruption, with white color and blue color crimes in terms of how they are, you know, process. And it's easier to be corrupt against blue collar crimes because they're simpler crimes. It's harder to be corrupt against white collar crimes. People who commit white collar crimes get shorter and mitigated sent to say. Oh, it's harder to frame them.

I see what you're saying. That's what I have to do. Yeah, that makes total sense. And then I guess in that, in that sense, are you saying like, is that like a devil's advocate thing? Like are you just saying like, you're like, or you can't believe that like they're not being charged because. No, what you're saying is it's unfair to people who commit blue collar crimes because it's so much more easily corruptible than white collar crimes. Yeah, yeah. That makes total sense.

I understand. Yeah, and that's just inherent in a bad system of justice. We need large structural change, like you say. I think we're going to get that with the Democrat, whoever it is. Some Democrats more than others, but I'm not going to get into that. But I agree. And we need to give some of these, what used to be ethical norms. We have to give them teeth. We have to make them rules, as Richard Painter was saying on our show.

And we just, you know, we have to, you know, our number one priority should be to just get on vote. And get as many people as you can to vote and vote blue and vote blue all the time all the way down the ticket. Because we aren't going to be able to make any changes whatsoever if we don't. That's true. Yeah. And then hope that our vote counts. Because that is the case that our vote is supposed to be the most important thing and it is and it should. But then I feel like Putin's like he knows that's our play and I'm like, damn, then what's our plan?

We don't have one yet, really. There is nothing we can do about our votes being changed or hacked or anything. That doesn't mean, like what I'm saying is, that you can say, I said everyone should open vote. Yeah, but what if your vote doesn't count? It doesn't matter, you still have to show up in vote. You still have to show up in vote. I think it matters, but yes, you should still show up in vote. I'm not saying it doesn't matter.

Right, right. I'm saying is, it shouldn't matter to whether or not you vote. Exactly, that remains. Definitely vote on top of that to those that are saying, okay, if I vote, then what, like, they still have that anxiety. And I know that we're not therapists. We can't like relieve every tension. But I think the idea is that if we lose because of Russian interference,

then yes, we'll have something else to address, just like what happened in 2016. Like, I fear that possibility happening again. Sure, that literally voting in numbers to manipulate is our plan to that. I also feel like maybe, I don't know, maybe the realist should be thinking of another plan to I'm not really good at thinking after the election. Well, just in case we lose to voter manipulation again, like the same thing you lost it before, but like 10 fold. My plan is to move.

Okay, no, now we're talking. That's a, honestly, I don't wanna believe that's what's gonna happen, cause I'm gonna come out voting, I'm gonna register my friends and all that, but I'm worried that we have a blind spot because we're so hopeful that. Yeah, I'm just saying,

don't let that worry of your vote, not counting, prevent you from voting. I agree, told you. It should make you wanna vote more. And fortunately, we only get one. Yeah, no, seriously. Yeah, I think there there should be that should be part of reparations. Yeah. Yeah. A bomb on save us. We need you. I think I think he might have a plan. He's been at this rodeo before he knows what he's doing. He was I needed a more in 2016. But we'll see what

happens. Yeah. All right. That's a show, guys. Any any last final thoughts before I sign off? That was it, yeah. No. Alright, wonderful. Will you guys please take care of yourselves, take care of each other? I've been AG. I've been Julie Stonzen. 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. Our marketing consultant and social media manager is Sarah Least Diner and our subscriber and communications director is Jordan Coburn. Fact checking in research by AG and research assistants by Jolissa Johnson and Jordan Coburn. Our merchandising managers are Sarah Least Diner and Sarah Hershberger Valencia. Our web design and branding are by Joelle Reader with Moxie Design Studios, and our website is mullershyrote.com. Season 4 of How We Win Is Here.

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

and take away our freedoms. So the official podcast of the persistence is back with season 4. There's so much more important work ahead of us to fight for equity, justice, and our very democracy itself. We'll take you behind the lines and inside the rooms where it happens, with strategy and inspiration from progressive change makers all over the country. And we'll dig deep into the weekly news that matters most and what you can do about it,

with messaging and communications expert, co-founder of Way to Win, and our new co-host, Jennifer Fernandez and Kona. So join Steve and I every Wednesday for your weekly dose of inspiration, action, and hope. I'm Steve Pearson and I'm Jennifer Fernandez and Cona and this is how we win. M-S-O-W-Media.