Jack - Mueller Report Pt. 19

Episode Date: September 27, 2019

This is the final episode of our special coverage of the redacted Mueller report, we’ll be covering Sections III and IV in volume two as well as the back matter, pages 159 – 182 plus the appendices. And this is perfect timing, as we wrap up the Mueller report here at the end of September 2019, we are now moving into a formal impeachment inquiry announced by Nancy Pelosi. Support our show at Patreon.com/muellershewrote or follow us on Twitter 

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

and more than a few spirited rants. Just visit patreon.com slash start me up or wherever you get your podcast and start listening today. Thanks to Honey for supporting Mola, she wrote, if you ever buy something online only to find out later you missed a discount. Honey is a free browser add-on that finds the best deals online. It's free to use and easy to install on your computer just two clicks, so shop with confidence, get honey for free at joinhoney.com slash AG. And thanks to the app called Neighbors by Ring for supporting Mola She Wrote. So if you want to see what's going on in your neighborhood, text AG Pod to the number 555888 to download the Neighbors app today, that's AG Pod to 555-88. So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said.

That's what I said. That's obviously what our position is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have and I have communications with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Food and Fire? I have nothing to do with Food and I've never spoken to them. I don't know anything about a mother than he will respect me.

Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. So, it is political. You're a Communist! No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring. Like all members of the oldest profession I'm a capitalist. Hello and welcome to Muller She Wrote. I'm your host A.G. and with me today are Jordan Coburn. Hello. And Amanda Reader.

Hello. And this is the final episode of our special coverage of the Redacted Muller Report. Wow. Yeah. Wow. I never got me here. 19 weeks. Crazy.

That's fucking a lot of time. It is a lot. It's a lot of time and a lot of soads. But well worth the coverage, I think. This will definitely live on into eternity past, you know, being able to keep my head alive. So yeah, fantastic job. Thank you. Yeah, I'll save all the nice cities for the end when it's officially over. Oh, and I'll thank you too later. But not now. We'll see how you do. No, I'm kidding. Well, we'll be covering sections three and four in volume two, as well as the back matter. We'll see how you do. No, I'm kidding. We'll be covering sections three and

four in volume two, as well as the back matter. We'll go over that a little bit. That's pages 159 to 182 plus the appendices. And this is perfect timing. As we are wrapping up the Mueller report here at the end of September 2019, we are now moving into formal impeachment hearings, announced by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House this week, the Mueller Investigation, yay, we had cocktail party. It was good. We made impeachment rum punch. It was delicious. But the Mueller investigation covered Russian election interference in 2016, and Trump's campaign role in that, along with the obstruction of justice of the Trump Russia and obstruction investigations. He actually obstructed the obstruction investigation. But now these impeachment proceedings

are focused on Trump's interference in the 2020 election. Had he only successfully gotten Coraloo and Dowsky to get sessions to un-recuse himself to limit the scope of the Mueller investigation to future elections, we might be looking at this, but it's all coming out at a very quick clip. And so now we're looking at 2020 election interference with a whistleblower complaint found credible by the intelligence community

inspector general that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his leading political opponent in 2020 Joe Biden, who's still leading, but not in every state. No, Elizabeth Warren is leading in a few states now. Yep. And I think she's crushing it in Iowa, which is an important one to crush it in. Indeed. Indeed. We're wrapping up the 2016 investigation, and now we're looking forward to the 2020. Theatic timing.

Right. It truly is a beautifully seamless transition right now that's happening. Yeah, our timing has been really, really crazy. We had the live Largo show the day the Mueller report came out. We're going to be in Boston in November. That's right. two days after. November 7th. After Stone's trial begins,

and it's also the same day that we get to hear the Flynn hearing on, we know with Sydney Powell, his new crazy lawyer, it's just everything is timed. So we couldn't have written it better, honestly. I mean, we could have written it better by like not electing Trump, but yet here we are. So, you know, we get it in the best way. Silverlinings. So section three and volume two are the legal defenses to the application of obstruction of justice laws to the president of

the United States. This is basically Mueller objecting to Trump's lawyers assertions that a core obstruction of justice statute, which is 18 U.S. Code Section 1512C2, does not apply to Trump's actions. That is, Trump can't obstruct justice by closing an obstruction investigation or firing the FBI director because of his powers under the Constitution. So Mueller concluded this assertion is bullshit. And he bases that conclusion on the framework of Supreme Court precedent addressing the separation of powers. Under that framework, Mueller explains here in Section 3 that Article 2 of the Constitution does not immunize the President from liability for his conduct. And going a step further, Mueller asserts that the obstruction of justice laws prohibit the President's corrupt efforts to use his official powers to curtail and or interfere

with an investigation. And Mueller splits his defense of that conclusion into two sections, the statutory defense and the constitutional defense. So he's very organized. Yeah, hell yeah. So section A covers the statutory defenses to Mueller's application of obstruction of justice provision to Trump's conduct, and that begins on page 160. So first Mueller tells us what 18 USC

section 15C two states. It says whoever correctly otherwise obstructs influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title or in prison not more than 20 years or both. How about 20 years? I'd say 20. Yeah, that sounds good to me. And you could find a buddy who doesn't have any money. You have to take it out of Prestwick Airport in your turnberry. So, you know, for future reference, if you're listening, in 2050, Trump has a deal with Prestwick Airport near Turnberry, where he's been allowing the Air Force to stay, basically benefiting him personally. So, this here, the

counters, this whole thing about, you know, impeding official proceedings or attempts to do so, shall be fine under this title. This counters one of the Republicans' main arguments, and that's that you must have an underlying crime and that you have to successfully obstruct justice to be guilty of criminal obstruction of justice. Mueller explains here in these pages that the Department of Justice has taken the position that Section 2 here is broad, it's independent and it's unqualified, and courts, meaning it doesn't rely on other parts of itself, and courts have so interpreted it that way.

Particularly, the word or, in the sentence, whoever correctly otherwise obstructs influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so. Yeah, that's what he's saying. The verb is, the verb gives statute of broad umbrella covering all these obstructive acts, right? Because it's or not and. You don't have to do all these things.

More than addresses the word otherwise in whoever correctly otherwise obstructs and points out that this word otherwise otherwise, untathers these behaviors from the behaviors in section 1, and the behaviors in section 1, 1512c1, say, whoever, correctly, alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in official proceeding. I'm looking forward to them using that against William Bar with this whole Ukraine thing, hopefully. That's me as well.

And it's untethered to the other kinds of obstruction. Basically Mueller is saying you don't have to destroy evidence and attempt to influence or impede a proceeding. It's just either or. And all the language in these sections are standalone crimes under the statute and none relies on the other to be true for the president to be guilty of obstruction of justice. That's basically what Mueller is laying out here. And in subsection 2 on page 162, Mueller talks about the judicial decision that supports

his reading of the law. Mueller cites about a dozen cases here that support his analysis of the obstruction of justice statutes. So he's basically saying, the obstruction of justice law is good. There's nothing wrong with it. There's not any holes in it. It's well-established. Here's a shitload of case law. And it's very broad. It's been determined to be broad. And on page 164, Mueller then cites the legislative history of 1512-C2, and how it does not narrow the scope of a law either.

And on page 165 Mueller says the general principles of statutory construction do not indicate the application of a law is incorrect in Trump's case. So he says the law is good and it applies here. In this section, Mueller cites case law asserting the requirement of fair warning, Mueller cites case law asserting the requirement of fair warning, due process, and the rule of lenity, and that those do not justify narrowing the reach of the obstruction of justice law. So, first, the fair warning requirement involves the nexus part of the obstruction law, you know, those three criteria. And as we know, in order to be a criminal obstruction, you have to have the obstructive act and nexus to an official proceeding and intent. And regarding the nexus piece, the court has imposed a nexus test that requires the

obstructive act to be connected sufficiently to an official proceeding to ensure culpability. So the government must show, as an objective matter, that the obstructive act was likely to obstruct justice and not, it doesn't cover defendants who would use, you know, means that would, unnaturally or improperly be successful. So, like, if Trump threw a shoe at Mueller's car, like, that's not, that's, he's not expecting that to be able to impede an investigation.

Especially if the windows were up, you know. So objectively, it has to make sense. So like, objectively, it has to make sense. So objectively, it has to make sense. And then additionally, the second part here is the government must show subjectively that the actor contemplated a particular foreseeable proceeding. The fact that the government has to show those two things alleviates the fair warning concerns,

because showing both of those things ensures the conduct has a close enough connection to existing or future proceedings to implicate the dangers targeted by obstruction laws. So fair warning basically means a law must define an offense with enough accuracy, so a reasonable person would understand what conduct is prohibited that they're crime. So Mueller is saying that because the government must prove nexus objectively and subjectively, a statute is well defined.

Yeah, essentially, you wouldn't be being so defensive if you knew that what you were doing was an okay. Yeah, he's basically saying there's enough words in this law for your dumbass to understand that it's illegal what you're doing. Right, so the fair warning is innate, basically. Yeah, it's alleviated by the simple existence of the verbiage of the law.

Cool. And then the due process concerns, which also requires a law to be definite enough that ordinary people can understand what conduct is criminal. That's offering someone due process. And Mueller asserts the language and the law that requires the defendant to act corruptly satisfies the concerns over the vagueness of due process. He then cites a bunch of case law that defines what it means to act corruptly. So basically Mueller is saying, we have a very well-established definition of corrupt,

or corruptly, as supported by this case law. And since we have a definite meaning for corruptly, we can assuage the concerns of due process vagueness. So these, this lenity law and due process and the first thing, what was it, the, I just, we just talked about it. Lennedy, fair warning.

So fair warning due process and Lennedy, those are all things that could make the law seem vague, but he's saying the well-defined formulas of the law, the way that we have to apply an Xs2 illegal proceeding, you know, alleviates the fair warning part, and the way that we understand that, you know, you do process concerns or are laid by the fact that, you know, corruptability is very well well defined in the law as well. And so that alleviates that vagueness. I think it's interesting that he's attaching the alleviation of these vagueness concerns

within the law to specific requirements in the obstruction statutes. Right. Why would he put this in unless his intentions were anything other than for Congress to take this and do something with it? It's that, but it's also to say that because Trump's lawyers were arguing that he's above this law. Right. Yeah, and also trying to use the quote unquote vagueness or the wording of the law to

be slippery and Mueller's like, you can't. It's too, like, you're going to try to do that, but it's too obvious. Right, yeah. And that was born out in the fact that he didn't charge junior with campaign finance violations regarding the June 9th Trump Tower meetings. That's a very other thing. Yeah, because he didn't have, he wasn't willful

in knowing enough to be corrupt. And so had he charged him with that, somebody might have been able to, you know, appeal this on the whole due process of the law part of this particular argument, if they were smart enough to even get there. I don't know if they would have been. And then finally, he talks about the rule of Lendedi which is an interpretive principle that resolves ambiguity in criminal laws in favor for the less severe construction. And Mueller says the language of 1512c2 defines a structurally independent general prohibition on

obstruction and that text removes the ambiguity and he cites case loss supporting that as well. So the law is good. Continuing on with the law is good. And then Mueller covers other obstruction statutes that could apply to Trump's conduct. So if 1512 to C2 didn't, which it does, but just in case there's 1503, which applies to obstruction of judiciary proceedings, 1503A, which covers witness tampering, and 1505, which broadly criminalizes obstructive conduct aimed at appending agency

and congressional proceedings, and then if that wasn't enough, there's 1512B3, which criminalizes witness tampering to stop communications of information about crime to law enforcement. So if needed, which it's not, but if it is, there's all these other obstructive statutes that could apply to the president and he cites K-SLAW for each one of those. So he's laying it all out. And those are basically all

of Mueller's defenses for why the president's conduct is subject to obstruction of justice laws along with his defense of the law itself. It's pretty amazing. He says here at the end, in some, in light of the breadth of section 1512C2 and the other obstruction statutes, an argument that the conductive issue in this investigation falls outside of the scope of obstruction law, Lacks Merit. Cool. Yeah, it reminds me of this quote from Wargames. Mr. McKetrick, after very careful considerationrick after very careful consideration sir outcome conclusion that you're

new defense system sucks so yeah what do you think i think i think i mean it's it seems boring at its face but like he just to go through every single piece of it and defend how the president can't get out of it or any president not just trump but anyone who obstructs justice can get out of it. Or any president, not just Trump, but anyone who obstructs justice can't get out of these obstruction of justice statutes.

Despite, you know, there might be a pealable arguments for vagueness in let it in due process and all that, but he's like, nope, everything is alleviated, here's the case law, and I'm sure that this has been argued before in previous obstruction of justice cases. Right, so he knew exactly kind of how to like, swat that away. It's interesting to me, I think, sure that this has been argued before in previous obstruction of justice cases. Right. So he knew exactly kind of how to like swat that away.

It's interesting to me. I think that this wasn't talked about more, the specific section because truly, to me, this is like, otherwise, what other reason does he have to put this in the report? Truly, I just had this before, but I'll reiterate it again. It's like, it seems clear as day that it's in here for a reason. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, he clearly knows Trump well and knows what the people around him are going to do.

And that's the only defense Trump ever has is saying that was unclear. That was vague. Or I'm above this law. Or like, that doesn't mean what you think it means. Or, you know, I can get away with it. And I can, I can, I can, you know, misuse the words of the law to make them mean what I mean. But he's like really clearly laying it out that like, actually, you know,

and you knew this was obstruction and there's nothing unclear about this. You know, so you're right. I'm surprised this wasn't talked about more, but this would not be a good talking point. Right. And it also would be a good talking point too because then people could come at Mueller for being biased.

Right. Because it does seem like this is kind of him trying to preemptively sort of defend the entire legal system against Trump's buffoonery that he inherently knows is probably coming. Yeah, and notice, he's only going over obstruction of justice laws. He's not talking about campaign finance violations.

He's not talking about anything volume one. And I think he's also laying this out for, you know, not just the specified purpose of handing this over to Congress or that Trump can't squeeze out of these laws. But I think he's laying this out for future prosecution of the president when he leaves office. Hell yeah. And that has a big part, that is a big part of why he didn't even accuse the president of obstruction of justice. He didn't even breach that because that could, that could taint a jury in the future. Because you know, if you, if Trump gets out of office and there's a jury, they're putting it together, they'll be like, yeah, Mueller said he was guilty, you know, and, and to do

that, you taint that. And he specifically said since I can't indict him, because the DO was guilty, you know, and to do that, you taint that. And he specifically said, since I can't indict him because the DOJ won't let me because the Office of Legal Counsel memo, I'm not even going to accuse him. Because when he leaves office, he is prosecutable. And he even testified to that when a Republican asked him, Ken Buck, in his testimony to Congress. And now you have the law laid out for when for whatever he tries to object with. And in here it all is, like, you don't even have to to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community,

to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, to the community, think we're going to talk about this in daily beans, but I'm hoping it doesn't take forever. I think a lot of things have been really slow moving over the last two years, but I think of the Democrats actually want to use this moment effectively than they really need to move quickly, but I think we'll get deeper into that on the beans.

Yeah, I feel like we've been stuck in second gear. Yeah, totally. Like on friends. Yeah, I feel like we've been stuck in second gear. Yeah, totally. Like on friends. Yeah. Well, a lot happens in nine months, right? Like it could be that in nine months, he gets in peace, removed from office, and then is facing state charges. That could be where we're at nine months. So it's down with him. He can't like immediately part in him or anything. And so, but did you see on our on Twitter after we posted our impeachment punch cocktail party pictures? A hundred people were like, there's going to be a lot of babies more than nine months.

Yeah, it's going to be a lot of like babies named Nancy. Yeah, impeachment party. Woo. And I was like, I don't know how many of our fans are like, I'm getting laid tonight. Yeah, that's amazing. You're in good relationships. If this is grounds for banging nine months, I'm going to adopt a cat named Zalinsky. And Jordan, speaking to Congress and he handed it off to Congress, waiting until we get to the next

section right after this quick break. We're going to talk about the constitutional defenses. We do, we do, we just cover the statutory obstruction of justice law defenses. He goes into the Constitution after this and it gets pretty sexy. We'll be right back. This episode of the Special Coverage of the Mueller Report is brought to you by Honey. Honey is a totally free browser add-on that finds for you the best discounts on the internet. I hit it when I buy something and then I find a discount code like right after, but with Honey that doesn't happen to me anymore. The free app totally free apps scours the web for the best discount on whatever you're buying online and automatically applies it at checkout.

So Amazon, Sephora, Best Buy, Nordstrom, I just shop like I normally do, and Honey does the rest for me. Honey members have saved more than $800 million, and they have over 100,000 five star reviews on the Google Chrome store, which is not bad for a totally free app that takes just two clicks to install. I just recently had to get a new hairdryer. My hairdryer kicked the bucket, cropped out on me, and Honey found me the best coupon code. I didn't have to go hunting for one. Before hunting, I used to spend a long time online trying to see if I could get a coupon code,

but they auto-applied it for me. At checkout, I ended up saving $12. So it's amazing. It's basically free money. I don't know why you don't have it. Free app, two clicks to install, free money. So there's really no reason not to use honey. It's free to use.

It's easy to install on your computer and just two clicks. So shop with confidence, get Honey for free at join honey dot com slash AG. That's join honey dot com slash AG. Honey, the smart shopping assistant that saves you time and money when you're shopping online. All right, hello, we are now on to section B on page 168 and the constitutional defenses applying to obstruction of justice statutes to Trump's conduct. This section basically asserts that just because Trump has brought authority under Article

2, that authority co-exist with Congress's equal article 1 powers to enact laws, and Mueller concludes that Congress can validly regulate the president's exercise of duties to prohibit actions motivated by corrupt intent to obstruct justice. He also says that when the president's official actions come into conflict with the law, particularly in this case obstruction of justice laws, any constitutional tension is reconciled through the separation of powers. And so he has an analysis for that as well. He's not of everything. But before Mueller addresses article two,

he considered one threshold, statutory construction principle that is unique to the presidency. And that is the principle that general statutes must be read as not applying to the president if they do not expressly apply where application would arguably limit the president's constitutional role.

So this is when Trump complains that, you know, because he's under investigation, he should be able to obstruct those, that investigation, because it, it, it, like, disallows him the time he needs to do the president thing that he should do, which is mostly golf. But I have time for this investigation. And so this is him saying in reference to something like the obstruction statutes, those are overridden by his powers as president. Or necessary duties, I should say. Right.

Or constitutionally, you know, you can't do your article one stuff if it messes with my article two stuff. Yeah. It has a chilling effect. They actually use that. That's a term of art and the law. Weird. Chilling.

So in other words, would the law limit the president's ability to do his president job? And that's known as the clear statement rule, and it's sourced in two principles, because sorry Trump, you're not the first ever to do anything. First, law should be constructed to avoid serious constitutional questions. And second, Congress should not be assumed to have altered the constitutional separation of powers without clear assurance that they intend to. So Mueller goes on to cite several instances where the courts address the clear statement rule.

Mueller then tells us the Office of Legal Counsel, in addition to the courts, have recognized that the clear statement rule does not apply with respect to a law that raises separation of powers' questions if the law is applied to the president. So you lose again, Trump. For instance, the federal bribery statute does not raise the separation of powers question

because the constitution doesn't give the president the authority to receive bribes. I know it sounds really basic, but you know, you gotta explain it to Trump somehow. And therefore, basically what he's saying is obstructing justice isn't a power guarantee to you under Article 2. So us limiting your ability to correctly obstruct justice doesn't limit your Article 2 powers.

Right. So he's saying in general, you can only claim this sort of overreaching power, over the things the Constitution explicitly grants you as the president. Yeah, and he's going to get into this thing like he's explicitly allowed to fire Komi as president. That's an article to power that he has. But if it conflicts with a corrupt act that Congress creates a law for like obstruction of justice, then there's no separation of powers issues because now you're talking about a corrupt act and you aren't guaranteed the ability to crime. It's not article two. I feel like Trump's strategy with all of this stuff is like, I can do anything I want

unless there's something, a specific law written, that's written extremely clearly that says I can't. Like, he doesn't consider, I mean, we've known for a long time, he doesn't consider whether something is appropriate. He just will, you know, use his powers to the extent of his possibility without worrying, whether or not it's really legal, only worrying, you know, whether or not it's a specifically he can't. Yeah, I don't even think of it. He says that, but Mueller says, I do have a law that specifically says that you can't do that

And it doesn't bring up separation of power issues because you're not granted the ability to accept bribes or obstruct justice or tamper with witnesses under your article two powers Yeah, and I think even if there was a explicit law he wouldn't listen to it anyway because that's his whole tune that him and all of his Chronies are singing right now is that he has overreaching expansive universal blanket immunity. Blanket immunity, yeah, for literally anything that he wants to do is how it is in his brain. What's really frustrating to, especially for me as an immigrant,

just recently I started reading the constitution because I was like, well, I'm here now, like, I'm here for the long run. Yeah, it's really interesting. A lot of random characters in there. Well, I have only understood from a huge turn the parliamentary system because I, the Gripping Canada and then lived in England. Oh, no!

Yeah, exactly. So I'm trying to wrap my head on everything and I'm like, what a great document. It's powerful, that's what we have. And I'm trying to, as I continue to live here, trying to understand the constitution and respect it. And our constitution is a millennial, and your Constitution is a boomer, so.

You know what I mean? Like, you know, like, it's powerful, and the fact that the president doesn't actually know anything about it is so enraging. Yeah, and not only that, but defies it, and be littles it. So anyway, so back with this bribery example, since you know, the federal bribery statute doesn't raise separation of powers question questions.

And it doesn't because the Constitution doesn't grant those powers to the president. If the if the Constitution said, by the way, the president can bribe people, then you wouldn't be able to have a bribery statute or enforce one against the president because he's explicitly given that power in Article 2. So therefore under the Office of Legal Counsel's analysis, Congress can criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the president because they raise no separation of power issues. So in other words, the Constitution does not allow the president to engage in obstructive conduct and further obstructive conduct actually impedes the president from taking care that

the laws be faithfully executed. So basically holding Trump accountable for obstruction doesn't not only impede his ability to do his job, but his crimes impede his ability to do his job. Yeah. So it's not even one way, it's contrary to what he thinks. Totally. Because obstructing justice prevents him from carrying out his article to power of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Seriously. Also, sorry, go ahead. Oh, you can't crime in president at the same time, bro. Right. And I'm thinking about like statements by leaders in Japan and Iran, people that truly will not even negotiate with us or sit at a table with them because of his conduct, not saying that that's necessarily as a director's result of his obstructive act, but just on principle, your conduct as the president is going to inform how you're

able to interact on a global stage. He blames that on the investigation. The leaders won't talk to me because I'm being investigated. No, the leaders won't talk to you because you crime. Yeah, exactly. And you're an untrustworthy person whose word means absolutely nothing. Yeah, that's terrible. Yeah. Let's see, we own a 171 here, where Mueller here addresses the separation of powers principles and how they support the conclusion that Congress can prohibit corrupt obstructive acts carried out through the president's official powers. And he concludes that Congress can do that without undermining his article two functions

because of the separation of powers. And in applying a separation of balancing tests, they call it a balancing test. Mueller concludes that Congress can valiantly make obstruction of justice statutes applicable to corruptly motivated official acts of the president without undermining his article two functions. He repeats that like nine different ways.

Yes. Mueller breaks us down in three sections. First of which starts on page 172 and addresses the Supreme Court's separation of powers balancing test and how it applies to this case. He cites usv Nixon, here, and other case law upholding the law. That when Article 2 power has not been explicitly assigned by the Constitution to be within the sole province of the president, but rather as thought to be encompassed within the general

grant of the president's executive power, the court has balanced the competing constitutional considerations. So, Scotus supports Mueller's conclusion. The court, we balance it, it's balanced. You may not be a climber. Mueller then tests himself using the effective obstruction of justice laws on the president's capacity to perform his article to responsibilities and concludes that the president has no more right than other citizens to impede official proceedings.

The obstruction of justice laws do not aggrandize power in Congress to use Serp Executive Authority. I'll repeat that. The obstruction of justice laws created by Congress do not aggrandize power in Congress to use Serp executive authority. In fact, they impose a discreet limitation on criminal conduct. Therefore, the laws would only stop the president from acting to obstruct official proceedings with, you know, for the improper purpose of protecting his own interests, and they would not stop him from doing president stuff, mainly because impeding official proceedings is

not president stuff. Right. So he's just reiterating it now, but now he's doing it under the umbrella of the constitutional defenses. So additionally, the president can't have unfettered authority to remove all executive branch officials involved in the execution of laws. The Constitution established that Congress has legislative authority to structure the executive branch by authorizing Congress to say say create departments and officer positions and specify how inferior

officers are appointed or removed. So therefore, while the president has the power to fire people, Congress has recognized authority to play certain limits on removal. Where the Constitution permits Congress to impose a good cause limitation on the removal of an executive branch office, the Constitution should equally permit Congress to impose a good cause limitation on the removal of an executive branch office, the Constitution should equally permit Congress to bar removal for the correct purpose of obstructing justice, and that correct purpose prohibition does not undermine the president's ability to perform his article two functions. So basically what they're saying here is that since the Constitution allows Congress to make a rule that says you can't fire Komi without

good cause. In so doing that, the Constitution permits Congress to bar the removal of Komi for corrupt purposes. And so since the correct purpose prohibition doesn't undermine his article two powers, a restriction on removing an inferior officer for a corrupt purpose doesn't either. So this is his little whittling his way down to say, Congress can make it so you aren't allowed to fire Komi for corrupt purposes and that doesn't interfere with your article two powers. It's a really, really brilliant, logical stepping argument.

Well, and is this, this isn't the first time that this logic has ever been laid out, though. Right. No, I imagine not because of the Saturday night massacre of Nixon. Yeah, exactly. And that's some of the case law that has cited Nixon B Fitzgerald, USB Nixon. But I love that. So because Congress is allowed to place to structure the executive branch. And in structuring executive branch, they can put a good cause reason, a rule, on firing officials. And because they can put a good cause rule on it, contrary wise, they can prohibit a bad cause removal. And since they can prohibit that,

that doesn't undermine article two functions. And since the corrupt purpose prohibition doesn't undermine article two functions. And since the corrupt purpose prohibition doesn't undermine article two powers, a restriction on moving an inferior officer for corrupt purposes doesn't either. So that's how he gets to, you can't fire Komi because for corrupt purposes. Yeah, it's like you may have the power to fire people,

but if it's for an obviously corrupt reason, people have the power to make that illegal. Yeah, and it goes all the way back to article one powers for Congress to be able to structure the executive and then to be able to put goodwill provisions on firing people, which means you can prohibit them from doing it for bad reasons, which means that it doesn't interfere with article two, which means that. It's just this perfect little, if that, if then, then this. And you're just like, well, so yeah, that's why you can't fire Komi for corrupt purposes. And claim that it's somehow infringing on your ability to execute your article two powers. So finally, Mueller covers how Congress has a power to protect congressional, grand jury,

and judicial proceedings against corrupt acts. From any source, and Mueller reminds us that Congress has article one authority to define generally applicable criminal law and apply it to all persons, including the president. So therefore, it has the authority to protect congressional proceedings. Then Mueller cites USB Nixon to show Congress has the power to protect, to protect grand jury proceedings because Nixon, in the Nixon case, the court rejected the president's claim of absolute executive privilege.

Sound familiar? Because allowing privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process law and gravely impair the basic function of the courts. Yeah. And that's the tapes. Yeah.

Exactly. And the grand jury cannot achieve its constitutional purpose without protection from corrupt acts. And in my favorite case, lost citation, Muller invokes Cobbledic versus the United States. We're the court. Oh my God. Cobbledic, Cobbledic, Cobbledic. A dig from better times. Cobbledic sounds like that thing that hangs down from a turkey's neck. Nice, nice Cobbledic bro. Cobbledic road. So in Cobbledic versus the United States, Cobbledic has to lose because of the name.

No. The court held that the Constitution itself makes the grand jury a part of the judicial process. That is the case, Cobbledock v. the U.S., where they'd established the grand jury as part of the judicial process. Not to mention the grand jury's function is enshrined in the fifth amendment that no person shall be held to answer for a serious crime unless on a presentment of indictment of a grand jury. And if the grand jury were not protected against corrupt interference, its function as an

independent charging body would be thwarted, therefore thwarting the entire judicial system. Mueller says that his assessment of the weighing of interests led him to conclude that Congress has the authority to impose the limited restrictions contained in those statutes on the president's official conduct to protect the integrity of important functions of other branches of government. Therefore, Mueller was not persuaded by Trump's argument that the president has blanket constitutional immunity to engage in acts that would corruptly obstruct justice through the exercise of otherwise valid article two powers.

That's such a smart way to just spend such a stupid argument. I know. It's almost like trying to explain to a child that because I don't allow you to say fuck, it doesn't interfere with your ability to eat your spaghetti. I was just thinking that as you were going over it. I was thinking about like not a child, but like when you're trying to like train a puppy or something, you're like, you can't be in here.

You also can't be in here. Yeah. You can't be in here either. Sorry. Not in here either. You may be in here. Good. Outside.

Good. Yes, good dog inside. No. Outside. Good. Yes. Good. Yes. Good dog inside. No. On the bed off. People say that to Trump too. Then on to he's not allowed on the furniture. Then on to page 178 and ascertaining whether the president violated obstruction law would not chill his performance on article two duties. So this is what I was talking about earlier, the chill, the chilling effect. And this is where Mueller ties it all together. The language of the statute, congressional powers, the balancing tests, the scotist decisions, and he says that applying the obstruction laws to Trump's conduct would involve determining if there was an

obstructive act, if the act had an access to an official proceeding, and if he was motivated by corrupt intent, and by applying those standards to Trump conduct, Trump's conduct Mueller has proven that would not hinder his ability to perform constitutional duties, and he cites Nixon v. Fitzgerald here taking into account the chilling effect on the president in adopting a constitutional rule of presidential immunity. So several safeguards would prevent a chilling effect. Number one, the existence

of settled legal standards. Number two, the presumption of regularity in prosecutorial actions. Number three, the existence of evidentiary limitations on probing the president's motives. And four, there's no historical instance where there was an impermissible chill. Can you, okay, can you give me a little bit more of a context as to the chilling effect? Imper-missable chill. Imper-missable chill. Yeah, basically, he'll tie it up in the end. Let's get to the end and then we'll see if there's any questions.

But Mueller breaks these down even further. First the term corruptly is a very high standard. So when the president is acting like a good boy, those actions fall outside of the obstruction zone. So there's no chilling effect since Presidenting, as defined in article two, is not corrupt. Okay, so there's a really high standard for corruptly. So it doesn't put, it doesn't chill the president.

You know, he doesn't have to walk around on eggshells trying not to corrupt because it's a high, high standard, right? And then second, there's no reason to believe that the investigations would occur except in highly unusual circumstances. So asking Trump to not obstruct justice can't take up enough time for him to not be able to president. It just doesn't happen that often. Third, in the rare cases where there is an investigation, the process of examining his motives need not have a chilling effect. Probing the president's intent is unquestionably constitutional in these rare, rare instances.

So you have to walk on eggshells, man. Just don't fucking break the law. And here's the law. And here's exactly what it means. And here's exactly what you can do and can't do. And it's a really high standard. So don't give me your, I can't do my job. That's bullshit. Finally, history provides no reason to believe that any asserted chilling effect justifies exempting the president from obstruction laws. So even if you were chilled, that doesn't exempt you from obstruction laws. As a historical matter,

presidents have very seldom been in the subjects of grand jury investigations, and it is rare or still from first circumstances to raise even the possibility of a corrupt personal motive for arguably obstructive action through the president's use of power. So this happens very rarely, and the standard is very high. And accordingly, the president's conductive office should not be chilled

based on hypothetical concerns about a possible application of a corrupt motive standard in this context. So in some, contrary to the position taken by the president's counsel, we conclude that in light of Supreme Court precedent governing separation of power issues, we had a valid basis for investigating the conducted issue in this report. In our review, the application of the obstruction statutes would not impermissibly burden the president's performance of his article two functions to supervise prosecutorial conduct or remove inferior law enforcement officers. And the protection of criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person, including

the president, accords with the fundamental principle of our government that no person in this country is so high that he is above the law. And that last quote comes from United States versus Lee in 1882, Clinton versus Jones, you know what that was, and United States versus Nixon. Hell yeah. Yeah, it's a good one. We'll be right back with a conclusion of the Mueller report. So stick around, it'll be good. You've heard about neighborhood watch groups, right? Well, neighbors looking out for neighbors,

that's how it works. They keep their community safe, you meet in the garage every week, but get this. The neighborhood watch is now an app on your phone. You might be wondering how it works. The app is called neighborsbors, and it's by Ring. That's the company behind those video doorbells and security cameras. I love the Neighbors app. It gives me real-time safety alerts and provides a convenient way for me to interact with my neighbors about stuff that's important to our block. And it's totally free.

You don't even need to own a Ring device. I downloaded the app for free, set up my homepage, and then used their easy interactive map to draw out the neighborhood I want to monitor, and, you know that where I want to talk to my neighbors and get alerts and I was immediately able to start getting safety alerts and was posting and reading anonymous messages from my neighbors right when I signed up. And first thing I noticed was somebody posted a video of a person that kept stealing their packages so the rest of us were able to keep our eye out. The fact is the app is making it easier to share information and communicate in a way we

couldn't using the old you know know, fashion neighborhood watch programs. And it's all in the palm of your hand, so it's really convenient. So if you want to see what's going on in your neighborhood, text AG Pod to the number 55588 to download the neighbors app today. That's AG Pod to 55588. Make your neighborhood safer today with the neighbors app by ring. All right, welcome back. I have saved the conclusion for last, though I'm sure. That makes sense.

I was going to open with it, but because it was called the conclusion, that was a dumb sentence. Why did I type that? December has procrashed the nation awareness month. If you're listening to this, you're still with us after 19 episodes of this. I'm sure you've heard this conclusion a million times, but I'm going to read it verbatim anyway. It's on page 182. This is the entire section four. Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment,

we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime,

it also does not exonerate him. The big cuck, I'm just gonna say big gun, it says he's in correctly, I just ruined that moment, but the big enchilada. The big enchilada of that, of this whole report, I think, was largely resting on that sentence. Yep, that's it. Very exciting. He's basically just saying, like this whole report, I think, was largely resting on that sentence. Yeah. That's it.

Very exciting. He's basically just saying, like, he crime, I can't say that he crimes directly. Here you go, Congress. Here's all the crimes. Yeah, exactly. Here's how they meet every single statue or not. Ta-da.

Oh, oh, Ukraine? Okay, well, I'll just be over here if you need anything. Did he call the Ukrainian president the day after the Mueller report came out or something? Yeah, wasn't it like the same week or God yes, it was because he was referencing like how what a shitty job Mueller had done. Yeah, he was like Got away with that okay, okay, 19th or something like that was one of his first calls with Zelensky. Yeah, yeah, yeah Again seamless transition. Yeah from everything for the molar report into now It's happening with Ukraine. Yeah, and so yeah with the Ukraine investigation I feel like we're finally getting that fast gratification. We never got from the tantric molar investigation

But all this work all the investigation not only opened up the door to impeachment But it now removes the excuse that got junior off the hook and the Russian investigation, right? Trump can't claim that he did not willfully and knowingly break the law when he went to interfere with the 2020 election. He can't. It's impossible. It's like when Ivanka got caught with using her private email. You can't I'm sorry. You didn't know? Right. Like You knew I know you knew. So real quick, let's go for the back matter.

And I'm just gonna go right to the report for this because these are the all the appendices at the end and they're super fun. I mean, I guess the biggest copy of them all a report I've ever seen, AG. Thank you. I guess it depends on your definition of what phonance, but I like back matter. Back beam is concerned. I know.

It's what I'm called the rolls on my ribs. Don't look at my back matter. So if we go to appendix A, we're going to get from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General appointment of special counsel to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters. So this is Rod Rosenstein's little memo that he wrote on May 17, 2017, when he appointed special counsel. And this was the one meant for public consumption. We got a few more narrowing scope memos later, like about Manifort specifically, but that

was that. And so it basically just says go forth and investigate Russia. And special counsel believes it's necessary and appropriate special counsels authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation. So Rod told him he could prosecute federal crimes arising, but then just not the president because the office of legal counsel memo says that you can't. Then we have appendix B, appendix B, glossary, reference to persons. And this is great because if you get this for nothing other than to have this list of names

and who they are, and they put them in alphabetical order. And some of the fun things to do is to guess some of the redacted names based on where they fall in the alphabetical order. Oh yeah, that's fun. Yeah, it's just peeking over, seeing all of that reduction. Yeah, so there's one here on page B5 between... Wow. ...Cots of and Cavalazze. So it's a K-A right name. Huh. And it looks about as long as a Raldi Cavalazze's name, Ike, also known as, it says. That's nice, he puts nicknames. So I'm so surprised they don't just redact everything to a uniform degree so you can't count the letters.

Yeah, I know, right? Yeah, that's interesting. Yeah, and that's harm to an ongoing matter. So it's a K-A name that's harm to an ongoing matter. And then there's one after graph between graph and hawker that's harm to an ongoing matter. And then there's one after graph between graph and hawker, that's harm to an ongoing matter. So that's either probably an H or maybe a GU, that could be in there too. We'll put out our guesses on our Twitter account. And that's a long one, and it's harm to an ongoing matter.

Whoever the person between Kotsov and Kavalatsya is, it's just like six words that says, this person is a shithead. Probably wonder. But that's harm to an ongoing matter. I feel like there should be more names that have harm to an ongoing matter because of all of the appendix D,

you get all of the handoff cases, and like 12 of them are totally redacted and ongoing. Then we have somebody between Menuchin and Mulur Magoon. Remember that guy? Yes, that's a name. Aside from Cobbledake. Mulur Magoon. He was one of the guys they caught on video going into Visita Sange in the embassy.

Mulur Magoon with his backpack and thumb drives. So between Menuchin and Muller, so that's N, oh it's probably an M-O name, and it's really short. So the mob. I think we're under there. My mob comma. So we'll think about that one. It's definitely not Manifur.

He's not redacted in here. And then Roger Stone's name is here, but his shit is redacted. His, his, his, like what he does for a living is redacted. It's like advisor to the Trump campaign and redacted, redacted, redacted. Probably the guy who transmitted the files to WikiLeaks that were stolen from Russia or at least coordinated

it. And then we have entities and organizations like Alpha Bank and Letter One, Unit 74455, that's the GRU, remember all the way back from Volume One? So those are the only redacted names that they have in there. And they have an index of acronyms, which seems really short for to me, for the government, but there it is. And I work for the government. I always have to put an index of acronyms

and pretty much everything I wrote that involved the government. And that one seems like a short one. Yeah, it does. Oh, but it's interesting that VEB is Vinesh Kanam Bank and QIA is not in here. That's who I think is, that's who my pick is for the secret company from Country A. Oh yeah, my bad.

It's the secret country A. Secret country. The country is secret too. The thing with Kanda. Yeah. Atlantis. You guys, they just fist bumped. They just fist bumped. In the same voice.

You guys been hanging out a little bit in the last year. What's appendix see? What is this shit? Introductory note, the president provided written responses. Oh, this is the introductory note to the questions that Mueller sent to the president. There is some grand jury material questions in here that are redacted. Written questions to be answered under oath by President Donald J. Trump. And it's basically run through them really fast.

There's subsections. But the main issues are the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower. The number two here is the Russian hacking or the Russian efforts to use social media and WikiLeaks. Number three is the Trump Organization Moscow project. Number four is, wait, what happened to four? Three, five. Oh, there's two fives. Oh typo So four is contacts with Russia and Russia related issues during the campaign Five is contacts with Russia and Russia related issues during the transition And that's it and then the responses of Trump. I don't recall. I don't know

I don't know You should put down the abbreviations list. I don't recall. I have no recollection of learning that Donald Trump, Jr. Paul Manafort, the Kushner in the meeting, I have no independent recollection. I'm not aware. My Trump organization, desk calendar, reflects that I was outside Trump tower during a portion of these days. He used his calendar like Kavanaugh did. I was outside Trump Tower during a portion of these days

He used his calendar like Kavanaugh did. What was it squeeze having brusquies? Working out at Tobin. I like beer He said you can I was at the National Golf Club. He's he's golfing a lot. I don't remember whether I spoke or met with junior I have no independent recollection. I do not recall. I become aware that the campaign documents already produced to you reflect the drafting evolution sources of information for the speech I to give probably on the Monday following June 7th

about the Hillary dirt. I don't recall. It's just all a bunch of, I don't recall. I do not remember like a literary. I do not recall. You have the public reporting. Yeah, there's nothing. Sometime in 2015, Michael Cohen suggested me the possibility of the Trump Organization project in Moscow. As I recall, oh he recalls, Mr. Cohen described this project as a general type that we've done in the past. I had few conversations with Cohen about it. I vaguely remember press inquiries. Mr. Manafort was primarily hired because

of his delegate work for prior presidential candidates. Yeah. And I do not recall being told about efforts for Russian officials to meet with me. I have no recollection of the details of what went for whom or whence you first learned about a change of the platform at the RNC. I do not remember having been asked about the World Chess Championship Gala. I don't remember.

I don't remember. So those are his answers. And then Appendix D, which is the fun one, but totally pretty much redacted. So we can't really see anything in here. But these are transfers, the special counsel office has concluded the investigation into links and coordination between Russia

and the office has transferred responsibility for these matters to other components of the Department of Justice and the FBI. These transfers include number one, United States versus B. Jan Kean, and Alp Teacon. And he was convicted, but that has been overturned, and it will probably be appealed by the government, but that's where we're at right now.

It's been overturned by the judge for lack of evidence, and it might have to do with the fact that Flynn, who was supposed to be a star witness in this case, stopped being a cooperating witness and became an unadided co-conspirator, like the week before he was supposed to testifying this case. United States versus Michael Flynn. I don't know what's going on with that. United States versus Rick Gates. United States versus the Internet Research Agency. United States versus Kalimnik, Paul Manafort, Victor Netcheko, that's all the Russian hackings,

William Samuel Patton, and we know what happened in that. He was found guilty. Yeah. And then, then number nine is harm to an ongoing matter, the acting attorney general and the special counsel to investigate. Among other things, crime or crimes rising out of the payments were Paul Manafort received

from the Ukrainian government. So that one's ongoing. Later to confirm the special counsel's authority to investigate redacted. Number 10 is the U.S. versus Roger Stone. Number 11, which is, oh, it says a waiting trial, but that's not redacted for harm to an ongoing matter. Number 11 is harm to an ongoing matter. And then other referrals, alphabetically by subject.

Number one, redacted. Number two, Michael Cohen. alphabetically by subject. Oh. So somebody's before Michael Cohen. Just last name? Yeah, palm to an ongoing matter. Number three, redacted, number four redacted, number five Gregory Craig and redacted. Scad and Arps late, Megyn Flom. And that might be, who was it with Gregory Craig? Johnny Blank.

Could be Tony Podesta, but he's the Podesta group. And Vin Weber is the Mercury group. And this specifically says Scott Narpsley, Meager and Flom. Number six is harm to an ongoing matter. Seven redacted, eight redacted, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13. It's really crazy seeing a visual representation of how much is redacted.

And 14 redacted. Yeah, These are all open and ongoing. I'm looking at these pages, which are just like black bars of redacted content right now And then he goes to completed prosecutions and that of course is popodopolis It was guilty 14 days. I think he got out and I think he served 14 I don't remember, but he's a douche and then Vanders wonwan, he served as 30 days, got out and was deported by his father-in-law worked in Alpha Bank, and he also worked at Scad and Arps. And then Richard Pignetto. And that was the guy, the one American citizen who was charged with all the Russians because

he provided false identities to them, but didn't participate knowingly in interference in the election. He just progently provided ideas and he's done, his prosecution is done. There's still a lot out there that we don't know about, and I used to be hopeful that the FBI and the Department of Justice would prosecute these, but in I know that in, as soon as Bill Barr took over the SDNY, I was looking into the hush money payments, the Southern District of New York for Michael Cohen, and they stopped that investigation, so that wasn't going on. And now it's being taken up by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

So and that's non-partonable. So I guess that's good. We're forcing all of these investigations. And in that Cohen case, the judge was like, well, if you're not going to finish this case, I'm going to release all this shit. And so he unsealed a bunch of stuff. And that's when Manhattan DA picked up the case. So I'm hoping there's other judges in other cases like some of these that maybe bar his

shutdown or shuttered that are like, well, fine, I'm releasing there's other judges in other cases like some of these that maybe bar his shut down or shuttered that are like well fine I'm releasing a bunch of shit and then maybe the state courts can pick it up where it's applicable But a lot of these are federal crimes too and you can't charge a federal crime in the state court. Yeah Well, it's up for the stuff that is also a state crime, right? So like there are some things that are state crimes in there Yeah, for example, Manafort is being tried in in the state of New York for kind of the same criminal conduct, but arising from different actions. And this was like his Airbnb thing, his real estate fraud. He's basically lied to the government and said his sister was a primary resident at this particular place. And so, but so he was paying, he was tax fraud. So because you pay lower taxes and stuff like that, real estate taxes,

and he falsified some business records, which is against law too. And that's what Psi Vance at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is looking into the Trump Organization for the Hush Money Payments, not that he violated any, he did violate federal criminal or federal campaign law. But what he's looking into is falsification of business records, which is against New York state law, because they said they paid Michael

Cohen for legal fees when actually they were reimbursing him for him taking a heat lock out on his house, a second mortgage to pay these, these women off for to keep quiet about their affairs. But you don't have hope that other parts of the security picked up and carried by our current Department of Justice. No, I have absolutely no faith in the Department of Justice right now, especially now. I didn't before, but now doubly since... Seriously. With the Ukraine thing, the the William bar is named in this several times. Yeah. As a point of contact and all in on helping orchestrate it all. Yeah.

And also just, you know, I haven't obviously been a part of this saga since the beginning and gone over all 19 parts in detail. I'm kind of new to obsessing over the Mueller report in detail. Thank you guys. But the fact that it lays out so clearly and he wraps it up in this nice little package and and since here you go Congress the fact that some of your Republicans are so silent on this and have done nothing not just over the summer when the Report came out but also now with this Ukraine thing. It's just so and raging their silence is just Definite. Oh, yeah history is going to look back on the Republicans so unkindly. Yeah. Like, listening to various Republican statements

over the last couple of days, it's like, they're putting their party over their country, 100%. And all of these fake patriots, I can't take it anymore. I can't take the fact that all of these people who are in Trump's base constantly tout around patriotism as a reason for all of their beliefs that wind up marginalizing and fucking over our country. But then when we have something going on, like what was outlined in the Mueller report and what is happening with Ukraine, that is so blatantly unpatriotic in such a direct

undermining of our entire democracy, they have nothing to say for it. Yeah, I've exposed about 11 cases of stolen valor from Trump supporters claiming that they're veterans or active duty service members. You can usually pick them out because they don't have an avatar on social media or they'll have a picture of a dog or something and it's usually like hashtag,

MAGA hashtag, 82nd hashtag, whatever. And then all you have to do, they'll be like, look, give you boogie piece of shit America blah blah blah whatever you know what they say and then you just say hey oh I see you're a veteran do you mind if I see your bootcamp picture it's all you have to do politely ask for their bootcamp picture yeah yeah it's crazy it's so crazy to me I also wish that these people would read a fucking history book because the people who are, the Republicans who are staying silent on all of this, like after the Mueller report has come out and everything's been so crystal clear, you know, these old white men have

never, have, you know, history has always been on their side. But if right now they're saying this abuse of power is fine, but if you read a history book, you know that someone who gets it with abusing power continues to abuse power. And women and people of color know this. So it's like, I just wish that they had any context as to what they're allowing because they're letting greed blind them. So there are education deserts in this country. So I know it's very frustrating.

Welcome. Welcome to our country. But anyway, that is it. We would so state we are unable to exonerate the president In case you hadn't heard that final line already a hundred times, but thank you guys so much for listening Thank you all I should say so much for for listening to this 19 this part series of us reading and at least breaking down or summarizing the Mueller report. We hope you enjoyed it. Check us out.

Our main podcast comes out Sunday nights. It's called Mueller She Wrote. And then, of course, we have the Daily Beans, which is a daily morning news pod with swearing. It's nice. I like it. And if you want to hit us up on social media, we're at Mueller She Wrote pretty much everywhere you go. So we'll see you there in any final thoughts. Now other than fantastic job with all of this seriously.

Thanks man. Yeah, totally. Really, really, really great job. Digestible and understandable, AG. Yeah, I know that's an incredible amount of work. So I'm so proud of all the work that we've all done. I'm glad it's over. And now we're moving on to the super fast sexy impeachment part with Ukraine.

And we can put this tantric ownership behind us. Like we've just been edged for two years. And that's time. Yes, seriously. Muller is an edge lord. Yeah, Muller is an edge lord. I'm okay with the Muller Report only really being something to hold us over until now. That was the fore lord. Yeah, I'm okay with the Mueller report only really being something to hold us over until that was the that was the four play. Yeah, Nancy's here and she's like, I'm ready to go.

It's just as important. It 100% just as important. Yep, it helped us, like I said, it helped us lead to this impeachment inquiry. Right. And now the Trump, his organization, all of his people have no excuse that they don't know the law. And now we'll just have to see if the Democrats will integrate everything that Mueller has done into their official articles on impeachment or if they're going to just keep it restricted to this Ukraine stuff. I think they're going to keep it restricted to the Ukraine stuff. It does seem like that. Although they might do an obstruction article and that might include the obstruction for

this investigation and the special counsel as well. I hope so. I don't think there's any reason to not include that in there, especially considering all the evidence you have. I agree. Alright, well thank you very much. You guys take care of yourselves, take care of each other. I've been AG.

I've been Jordan Coburn. I've been Amanda Reader. And this is Muller She Wrote. Muller She Wrote is produced and engineered by AG with editing and logo designed by Jolissa Johnson. Our marketing consultant and social media manager is Sarah Lee Steiner and our subscriber and communications director is Jordan Coburn. Fact checking and research by AG and research assistants by Jolissa Johnson and Jordan Coburn.

Our merchandising managers are Sarah Lee Steiner and Sarah Hershberger Valencia. Our web design and branding, our by Joelle Reader with Moxie Design Studios, and our website is mullershierote.com. Hi, I'm Harry Lickman, host of Talking Feds. Around table, the brings together prominent figures from government law and journalism for a dynamic discussion of the most important topics of the day. Each Monday, I'm joined by a slate of Feds favorites and new voices to break down the headlines and give the insiders view of what's going on in Washington and beyond.

Plus, sidebar is explaining important legal concepts read by your favorite celebrities. Find Talking Feds wherever you get your podcasts. M-S-O-W-Media you