Jack - Politicon Panel with Jill Wine Banks

Episode Date: October 28, 2019

This week's episode is from our panel at Politicon in Nashville. Thanks to Jill Wine Banks for joining us and to all of you for coming to the panel.

I'm Greg Oliar. Four years ago, I stopped writing novels to report on the crimes of Donald Trump and his associates. In 2018, I wrote a best-selling book about it, Dirty Rubels. In 2019, I launched Proveil, a bi-weekly column about Trump and Putin, spies and mobsters, and so many traders! Trump may be gone, but the damage he wrought will take years to fully understand. Join me and a revolving crew of contributors and guests as we try to make sense of it all. This is Preveil. Thanks to Noom for supporting Mueller, she wrote, sticking to a weight loss plan can be hard and Noom is designed for results.

It's out with the old habits and in with the new Sign Up for your trial today at Noom and OOM.com slash AG. Thanks to Native for supporting Mueller, she wrote, Native makes safe, simple, effective products that people use in the bathroom every day with trusted ingredients and trusted performance. For 20% off your first purchase, visit nativedeodorant.com and EnterPromoCode AG

during checkout. Thanks to Policy Genius for supporting Mollershi Road. Policy Genius is the easiest way to shop for life insurance online in just two minutes. You can compare quotes from top and share as to find your best price at policygenius.com. And thanks to your super for supporting Mollershi Road. Improve your health with the power of superplants, with free recipes and tons of creative, to find your best price at policygenius.com and thanks to your super for supporting Mollarshi Road.

Improve your health with the power of super plants with free recipes and tons of creative easy ways to add super food mixes to your meals. Get 15% off your first order when you use code Aegee at checkout. Hi, I'm Scott Dworkin from the Democratic Coalition and you're listening to Mollarshi Road. 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 the opposition is.

I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have not have communications with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin for having nothing to do with Putin? I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about a mother than he will respect me. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. So it is political. You're a communist. No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring.

Like all members of the oldest profession, I'm a capitalist. Good afternoon. Thank you for coming to our panel. And thank you to Jill Winebanks for joining us today. If we could have one expert on impeachment, she is the one I would choose every time. And I also want to introduce Amanda Reader, say hi. Hi everyone. And this of course is Jordan Coburn. Hello. So let's just kick it off. I wanted to talk a little bit about the big news that happened this week But I've got a little bit of a lead up to it. I'm gonna take you down like a little Rachel Maddo trail for a minute So the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into itself

It to the Russia investigation saying there could be low-level Officials that have lied or one low-level official that has lied to investigators. So this is morphed now from an administrative review to a criminal probe, which gives the federal prosecutor broader powers to compel testimony and the production of records. But the criminal aspect may stem from a referral made by the Department of Justice Inspector General Horowitz about a witness who may have lied to his investigators. And if that's the case, then the criminal aspect seems pretty limited in what they're doing. So, I mean, how can you, first of all, just investigating the oranges of the investigation,

I think, is a little odd. But in round, we've got bar traveling around the globe trying to do the same thing. It just seems like this is the actual witch hunt. It sure does to me, but I think we have to look at sort of what are the fundamentals of this. And the origins become irrelevant in the same way that the whistleblower is now irrelevant. You have the best evidence. You have a released document that says,

this is what was said in a phone conversation. I don't need hearsay about that conversation. I know what the conversation was. And you may remember that I'm someone who said that there was obviously a provable case of obstruction of justice and I said that, oh, months after he was elected, basically. So I think that the evidence is so clear, it doesn't matter what started the investigation. If the crimes are there, if the evidence is there, that's what matters. And that's what we should be looking at. But I think fundamentally, the biggest problem is that we have to even worry about whether the Department of Justice is acting as a political tool for the president, rather than as somebody who is trying to do justice for everybody

in this room for all of America. We, as bad as things were during Watergate, we never really worried about the fundamentals like that. And that's a serious problem to democracy where we have to sort of all the time think about, well, are they acting in the interests of the president? Are they acting in my interest? Are they acting in the interests of justice? Prosecutors have a role to play in our system, just as defense lawyers do. But they have to do it because of the facts,

not because things are made up. But clear, articulable facts, as my cave puts us. I explained it to my husband, like, imagine I picked up your phone, snuck in a password, and found naked photos of my sister on your phone. Are you gonna investigate how I got into your phone or can we talk about the fact that you're fucking my sister? No, but I mean, who gives a shit about Carter Page?

Like, fuck that guy. Who cares what he did? He was a Russian asset like 96 times. He's an idiot. His hats are stupid. Why do we care about how they got a vice award on Carter Page? Which they did, which was signed off by a bunch of Republicans, so I don't even understand.

Well, I want to play a double-savocate a little bit because it does matter. We don't want lies being the basis of anything. We don't want entrapment. We don't want phony baloney. Even though when you end up finding that there is crime and it wasn't through entrapment, there was generally a lot of crime going on. And it's laid out in the Mueller report.

It's right there. You can see that there were meetings that shouldn't have happened, that there is no crime of collusion, so please, no one use that word. There is conspiracy, though, and they were having a lot of meetings that look conspiratorial to me. But if you don't accept that,

look at the second part of the Mueller report. The obstruction is laid out in plain language. You can read it. It's there. The same thing is true in the conversation. Read. Get out the document. When you're in the newspapers, if you're reading online, it will show you the exact transcript.

It will show you Taylor's 15 page statement. Those will devastate you because the facts that they lay out are so clear. And if there was something that was exonerating of the president, believe me, that would have come out. And so far, no one has countered any of the things that are incriminating. And so to that extent, we can assume

that those things are true. Now, if at a trial something comes out that counters it, I have to have an open mind. If I were in the Senate and I were a juror, I'd have an open mind as to what might counter-balance what I've already learned. But right now I have an opinion that says there's enough evidence right now. Yeah. And going back to 2016, the wave at McCabe laid out the chronology and timeline of events. It's obvious that this wasn't some sort of an improper investigation.

It was properly open and properly conducted from beginning to end. And reviewed by a court? Yes, yes. And so Adam Schiff has said that this criminal inquiry that they're doing into themselves right now, and the intelligence community, has raised profound new concerns that the Department of Justice underbar has lost its independence and become a vehicle for Trump's political revenge,

which is exactly what Jill was saying. If the DOJ may be used as a tool of political retribution or to help the president with a political narrative for the next election, the rule of law will suffer new irreparable damage. The IG report on the Russian investigation is due out soon. Horowitz interviewed apparently more than 100 witnesses and reviewed a million records. He submitted a draft to the Department of Justice to review and declassify.

I don't think they're going to like what he has to say about Christopher Steele because when he interviewed him he said he found him to be extremely credible. And a lot of what he had to say actually surprised him. And the Durham investigation is separate from that. And it's bars as his bars globetrotting, like I said, to try to sell the conspiracy theories about the 2016 election. And now Lindsey Graham apparently was planning to send a letter to Nancy Pelosi telling her that the Senate Republicans would not vote for Trump to be impeached before he even saw a shred of evidence. But then he said Wednesday he was dropping that plan and instead he drafted his resolution condemning the impeachment process. And his

Republican colleagues didn't want him to send the letter because it would show where the caucus was split based on who signed the letter and who didn't sign the letter but voting on a resolution does that way worse. But he also said, I'm not saying Trump didn't do anything wrong. I'm saying the process is wrong. But Judge Barrel Howe, and this is the big news this week, Judge Barrel Howe has ruled that the Department of Justice must turn over the grand jury materials. That's what we've been waiting for. And this is why I have you here today, Jill,

to talk about this is the Jaworsky Road map and the Cerica decision. And we knew she was gonna, I mean, I didn't have any doubts that she was gonna rule in the other way. And a lot of people are worried about appeal. But to overturn another judge's decision is harder than to just make that decision to begin with, right? It is. Her decision is really well written.

It is 75 pages, so I'm saying that's gonna be a harder ask to say, go read it. So I've summarized it for you. These are the motorbath to read it. It says that summarized it for you. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother.

He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother.

He's more than a mother. He's more than a mother. He That's something that has gotten lost, I think, in the dialogue. And I like that he's barred from his life. Well, yes. And you did leave out of your narrative, the fact that Barr had not only auditioned for the job by writing a memo, but that he has a direct conflict of interest that should get him out of the case. And this is not a political judgment. This is not a right or wrong, a left or right.

It's just an obvious fact that when you are a participant and named in the investigation, you can't lead the investigation. That's just wrong. The New York Fire Association has asked that he recuse himself. Now, I don't believe he's a member of the New York Fire, so they may not have so much power

over him but it does say something that they're taking that position. The judge's opinion goes through a lot of facts makes clear that Russia interfered both in social media and in hacking of machinery of the Democratic National Committee in order to help Trump enter hurt Hillary Clinton. Now that's something that was put forth in the Mueller report that's been made clear by all of our intelligence agencies, but it's a premise for her whole conclusions. The gaps are incomplete in the investigation, the incompletion, is because of the obstruction, so that there would be more

information if they hadn't been obstruction. Everybody's mad at Mueller. And it wasn't his fault. Basically, her conclusion is that a Department of Justice is wrong on every legal argument that they raised. And she raises the issue of the foreign travel, which is going on now with Durham and Barr going around the country, trying to find, and some people are saying dig up dirt, but there doesn't seem any to dig up.

It's to make up. They have this pre-ordained conspiracy theory that has had no support and that many Republicans have said it just doesn't exist, we shouldn't be pursuing that. And basically she says that a argument that you have to have a house vote in order to start impeachment is in her words fatally flawed and I can tell you from Watergate that it didn't happen then either. There was not a house vote for a resolution until after the impeachment committee had started its hearings and going and let's just I just need to put two things in background,

which are number one, the House impeachment was preceded by a Senate hearing, a special committee set up to investigate the facts, what had happened. And the benefit of that was the facts were made public very quickly, as opposed to a criminal investigation, which can and should and must be done in secret for a variety of reasons. You don't want witnesses colluding with each other to change their testimony because they all know what the

others said. You want them testifying from their own memories and so you need them to be testifying in secret so they don't all hear what the other is saying. And that's how our system is set up. A grand jury is set up to be a secret investigative tool. When you get to trial, that evidence is turned over to the defendant, and the defendant gets to counter it, but not at that stage of a jury deciding that there's enough evidence to go forward. So we had the benefit of public hearing and public support to some extent, but Nixon still

had, he started out at 70% approval rating. He won the popular vote by a landslide. He won 49 states for the electoral college. He was an overwhelming favorite and support for impeachment was negligible until the facts started coming out and people saw the witnesses. And so that's an important distinction to make. And then we immediately moved to turn over our investigation so that the House didn't have to start and reinvent the wheel. We had spent that time doing it. Why should they?

And the judge approved it. It was approved by an appellate court. And because Richard Nixon ultimately believed in the rule of law, to some extent at least, he turned it over. I mean, he stopped the fight. And we were able to give what you are calling the road map to impeachment by providing copies of tape recordings and transcripts that we had created of the tapes. Lies that had been told by Nixon that we had proof or

lies and we ought to be criminalizing the public statements of presidents because most of his were public statements not perjury because they weren't to a grand jury, they weren't to a federal official, they were just to all of us as people as citizens of the country. But I do think that the grand jury materials will show that Trump did lie to a law of enforcement official when he said in his written answers that were so eloquent that he had no foreknowledge of WikiLeaks and I think that that redacted grand jury material will show the opposite of that and that he lied. Sticking to a health plan can be hard especially when you're not prepared to

handle thoughts and obstacles that can hold you back from making any progress. But then I found noom and they use cognitive behavioral approach to help you live your healthiest lifestyle. For me I was an all-or-nothing person when it came to my health. I would either be like full-on, zero-carb, six days a week in the gym, but once I had a burrito, I felt like I tanked the entire operation. So as you can imagine, that's not a very sustainable or fun way to live, but with NUME, you can build NUME and better habits customized for you. And it's incredibly convenient. I used to have five different apps to track my workouts, count my steps, log my food, get my nutrition information, and consult with a support community.

But now all of that is in the noom app. And we're all strapped for time, but noom takes just about 10 minutes a day to dedicate to yourself. And we could all use that kind of self-care. So that's an easy 30-second online evaluation, and you take it and it helps you develop a custom health plan. And it's not just about weight loss, though when I first started new, I did lose about 17 pounds, but over the last eight months I've been able to keep it off successfully because NUM gave me the tools customized to my needs to help me stop the all-enough

behavior and quit feeling guilty about burritos. Burrito guilt bat. I can't recommend this app enough. NUM is designed for results, so it's out with the old habits and in with the new. Sign up for your trial today at numnom.com slash AG. What do you have to lose? Visit num.com slash AG to start your trial today. Again, that's num.com slash AG.

Start losing weight for good. Now my question becomes, and I know I love the Watergate timeline to talk about it because it was after the Saturday Massacre in early November, they voted on committee rules, which kind of is what started the impeachment inquiry, but they didn't vote on a resolution for impeachment until February of 1974, and then it was August I think when he ended up resigning. And so we're kind of on that timeline right now, and if we did wait to February to do this, we would then have those grand jury materials because I'm sure Trump's

going to appeal this or I'm sure they're going to appeal it. And that could, that means it could take out until January or February I think. You know, the courts can act in an expedited manner and they did in our case and so that we went from, for example, subpoenaing the tapes for the trial, the 64 additional tapes that included what became known as the smoking gun tape in which you can hear the president discussing using the CIA to stop the FBI from following the money that would show that the $100 bills in the burglar's pockets came from a campaign check that had been cached in Florida by one of the burglar's. The money was traceable and that's why they didn't want the FBI looking at that.

How long did it take you to get for that to go all the way up to the Supreme Court and freeing? We returned indictments in March. We subpoenaed in April and in August, you resigned. But how long did it take you to get the tapes? In March, we subpoenaed in April and in August, he resigned. And we had already gone through the... I'm going to take you to get the tapes. Like I'm going to go out of the... Well, we argued in the Supreme Court early July, by the end of July, the court had ruled,

within a few weeks, they ruled that we had a right to them, we got them, and that was the end. So a couple of months. Yeah, nice. Yeah. Hopefully they moved that quickly. So, now the Department of Justice, like I said, Yeah, hopefully they move that that quickly So Now the Department of Justice like I said has till October 30th, but I mean that's three days from now But Monday the appeal comes to you. I mean they can file appeals on the weekend

Is it maybe it has already happened? I don't know I haven't seen it online yet, but it's possible But what do you think Jordan do you think maybe Nancy Pelosi should wait to get the grand jury materials before voting on articles? So if that lie is in there, because here's my dread scenario. We impeach by Thanksgiving, it goes to the Senate, they acquit him, and then we get the grand jury materials that prove that he lied. Then do we have to impeach him again?

I'd be like, you're talking about the House vote for impeachment? Yeah, yeah. I mean, ideally, there's enough in craminating things in the grand jury materials that House Republicans couldn't possibly in good conscience try to add these rules to the proceeding that we're thinking the Democrats are fearing

and is why they're not choosing to hold the vote right now, right? Well, I mean voting on articles, like to actually impeach it. Oh, yes, yes. Should we wait to impeach it? Oh, well, I guess that's more of a question of, I mean, some people believe we should only have one to two articles that we're voting on and have

that be it, and then some are saying, no, list out everything. So depending on which way the Dems want to go, I think that is what would mostly inform that. But I don't know enough about the timelines of the course in what's the timelines. I think if Trump lied and there's proof of it, I think that that would make it really difficult for Senate Republicans to exonerate them. Do you do you really think that's what's in the grand jury material? 100% all my people to everything. It's impossible to predict what exactly will be in the redacted portions. But I don't see any reason to have a vote now

without having them when we're so close to having the evidence because you want to act on the full evidence. And remember that impeachment is a political process, and I want all Americans to be fair jurors and to have the full evidence. And I keep going back to Paula Duncan a juror in the Manifort trial who was a loyal Trump supporter Who said the whole investigation we call her the rule juror? Oh, well

Paula Duncan. I like her. She said I believe the whole investigation is a hoax in a witch hunt But as a juror I saw the evidence and I voted voted to convict Manafort on all 18 counts because he was guilty. And I still believe that there are members of Congress who will see the facts and whose voters will see the facts and say, this is bad for democracy, this is bad for America. And you add to that some of the political things that are going on that bad judgment isn't grounds for impeachment. But putting our country in danger is.

And when you walk away from our allies and support our enemies, that's something that puts us at danger. And so you can add that. But I think there's enough for the same three articles of impeachment that were against Richard Nixon. They all apply here. You have contempt of Congress, which in this case is far worse than anything that Richard Nixon did, because he, Donald Trump, is not just trying to stop an investigation, a criminal investigation

of himself and his administration, but he has stopped oversight by Congress of his tax policies, of his immigration policies, of whole variety of things that are part of checks and balances, which is a fundamental principle of our democracy. And so that's something that Nixon never did. He only tried to interfere in this particular investigation. And so I think it's far more dangerous. So you have contempt of Congress, which is really serious. You have abusive power by trading. I mean, if you read the memorandum of the conversation, it says in exchange, basically, he's being asked for the military aid

that Congress has already approved, and that Ukraine knows has been approved, but they aren't getting. And he says, I need a favor, though. So before I give it to you, I need you to do this about CrowdStrike, which is the origins of the Democratic investigation, and Joe Biden. And did you see, I think it was yesterday or today, Sundelin's lawyer, you know, giant douchebag, Sundelin, who I thought was going to be a hostile witness, who I, but apparently his lawyer has now said that Sondland said there was a quid pro quo. He's like, I'm not a lawyer, but there was quid pro quo.

So he's actually, he actually told Congress that. So now you've got Sondland, Volker, Yvonnevich, Taylor, Bill Taylor, my hero right now. What a great testimony. And Bill Taylor. It was, right? And my hero right now. What a great testimony. And Bill Taylor. It was, right? And even his opening statement. And so here's a question for you. Apparently now, there's a guy named

Cooperman, who's the number two to Bolton. And Cooperman has filed a lawsuit saying, tell me what to do, the courts, because I've been subpoenaed, and the White House is telling me I can't testify. And so he's asking the court basically for a subpoena usually covers your ass, but I think he's asking for a double ass covering by going to the courts and saying, can you please order me to do this so that I can let you know I have a double kind of...

Who used to call that belt-in suspenders? belt-in suspenders belt and suspenders nice and so interestingly cuprimans lawyer is also representing Bolton John not Michael but I'm really interested in how the court rules on this because this could completely blow away Trump's blanket immunity situation for all witnesses, right? Yes.

And there's also the McGahn lawsuit that's pending where Congress is trying to enforce its subpoena of McGahn. And both of those could lead to the domino effect of once it's clear that they cannot evade this, they're going to have to testify. And if they don't testify truthfully, I think there's enough evidence now that people know that they better tell the truth because there will be contradictions and then they're guilty of perjury and they go to jail. Yeah, that's what a lot of the Watergate defendants went to jail for a long time for.

I'm just, I'm loving that they're all having the same, they're all agreeing on what, yeah, on what happened. Yeah. Hey, it's A.G. And I'm super pleased to announce that I found a deodorant that's aluminum-free, has simple ingredients, and it works. I've been looking for a simple die-free aluminum-free deodorant that works pretty much my whole life. I've been trying to find one, and I have finally found it.

You no longer have to sacrifice performance. It's called Native Deonaran, and they have over 8,000 5 star reviews. You can check them out on the Today Show, you can see them in L Magazine on Pop Sugar, at Refinery29 to name a few. They have fewer simpler ingredients and a wide variety of scents, unscented, and baking soda free options for those with sensitivities. They have coconut vanilla, lavender and rose, which is what I have, cucumber and mint, and eucalyptus and mint. And you can subscribe and save too. And they offer free returns in exchanges in the US, so there's no risk to try it. But the best

part is it works. I go to the gym a lot, and that combined with my 16-hour days really puts it to the test, and native past with flying colors. The sensor subtle, I smell great all day, and my skin feels softer and smoother, and it doesn't, you doesn't get the white stuff on my black clothes, which I love. I can't say enough great things about native. And get 20% off your first purchase by visiting nativedeodorant.com and entering promo code AG during checkout. That's 20% off your first purchase by going to nativedeodorant.com and enter promo code AG at checkout.

And it's Halloween season, but nothing can be as scary as shopping for life insurance until now, thanks to policy genius. It's so convenient and such a huge time saver, and less than two minutes you can shop and compare quotes from top insurers, and find the perfect policy for you at your best price. But wait, there's more. Once you apply the folks of policy genius, do all the heavy lifting. They handle all the paperwork, they cut through all the red tapes,

so you don't have to deal with the pressurized sales people, or all the paperwork and hidden fees and all that. It's just amazing. It's customized life insurance policy shopping. It's totally pain free. And they don't just take the work out of shopping for life insurance. They can help with home auto and disability insurance too. I love policy genius.

It really does take all the work out of shopping for life insurance. And their site is so user friendly. I answered some quick questions and in just two minutes, I had a bunch of options to choose from, and I was able to do it on my own terms without a pushy salesperson trying to sell me a bunch of options I don't need. It's really convenient, super easy to use. I can't recommend it enough.

You have got nothing to lose. So this October, take the scaryness out of buying life insurance with policy genius. Go to policygenius.com, get quotes, and apply in minutes. You can do the whole thing on your phone right now. policygenius.com, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance. I have a question. So how's Democrats are talking about making some of these testimonies public as early as next month, right? Do you think a public testimony would alter in any way people like Saunlin would testify? And do you think that's ultimately the best thing to do right now. Well, Sunlin is already under oath and has testified, so he's pretty much locked in.

I think that's one of the reasons that you have these private investigations first, as you lock people in, they can't change their testimony now. All right, so when you see somebody in court ask a question, and the witness gives an answer, and the lawyer's like, that's not what you told the grand jury. Right, so you think they would limit those public testimonies to people who have already testified behind closed doors? Well, it makes sense for a lot of reasons,

not just that one, but because you don't want a witness who you have no idea what they're going to say. You want to interview people before you put them on. And I think that several mistakes have been made by the house. I don't think Corey Lewandowski should have been put on without a pre-interview. I don't think Mueller should have been put on without a pre-interview. I mean, it's just a mistake not to know who your witness is.

I would never put a witness on. In any case, let alone something of national importance without knowing what would happen. Now, sometimes when you're the defense lawyer, you have to ask questions, you don't know the answer to, because the witness won't talk to you. But when you're the prosecution, you do not have to do that. You have subpoena power and you can get them to tell you. So I think it's very important to have public hearings,

because if public does not support this, if all people, if the people who support Trump don't support this, then it's not successful. I want people to believe the facts. And again, let's go back to Watergate. We had NBC, ABC and CBS. We did not have Fox News, we did not have Brightheart, we did not have social media. Better times. And we agreed on the facts. We agreed. We actually debated what those facts meant, but we didn't debate whether they were true. And that is a very important difference because if we don't agree on the facts, we are going to continue to live in our alternate bubbles.

I listened to Fox News to try to know what the other side is thinking, what other people are thinking. I hope that people watching Fox will watch other things. I hope that they will read Taylor's 15 pages. I hope that they will read the actual, I was on a BBC, no, I was on Chris Cuomo show and a Trump supporter called and said that I was a liar and I was reading from the White House released memorandum. I mean, that was the facts that they released. You can't call me a liar unless you want to call Donald Trump a liar for having released that.

I'm relying on what he said. Now, there are ellipses in this. That means there may be worse things that were left out. But this is what he put out. So you can't call me a liar. Those are facts. And there are no such, there is no such thing as alternative facts. Yeah, and I think we're already at 50% of the country supports impeachment and removal. And that's before the public hearings. And I think that it'll go, it'll skyrocket when that happens. Jill, I have a question for you. What do you think is the best way for

Democrats to shine a light on facts and convince people of facts? I think, I mean, honestly, genuine question. Oh, no, it is. And it's sad that we have to think about that because as I say, I come from an era when we actually did that. And when we had shows where Democrats and Republicans talked to each other and actually reached agreement or compromise and understood the other point of view. And I always try to understand what is the other side. First of all, it's an effective measure for convincing people is to understand what their

point of view is. But I think public hearings is the way. Right now you have not had the kind of public hearings. I view what has happened so far, and I look at the five-minute rule that has been the sort of standard as being a ridiculous impediment to truth and narrative. I hate that shit. It is really not fair. Even a skilled lawyer cannot in five minutes ask a question,

get an answer, do a follow-up, really understand what the story is. And when you go five minutes for the Democrats, five minutes on a different subject from the Republicans, and then the next Democrat has its own subject you never get anywhere so when you saw Barry Burke at the end of the hearing doing some questioning he got somewhere but by then all the news media were gone i know there everyone's like oh i'm glad they ended with that i'm like they should have started with that

uh... because it after eight hours everyone's tuned out, you know. And I just, as I say, I hope that when there are those hearings that Fox News covers them, gavill to gavill, and that MSNBC covers them, gavill to gavill, I want to see the full thing just as if you were a juror in a trial where you listen to both sides and you reach your own opinion of what happened. What's interesting, Amanda, I wanted to ask you what you thought about this. Ross' story put out some reporting that the White House is apparently fears some GOP

senators may choose to retire and impeach Trump on the way out the door, which reminds me of the drive-by fruiting in Mrs. Doubtfire. Like, it just throw banana at him and run away. What do you think about that? And we're talking about GOP senators. Well, maybe that would give themselves a chance to redeem themselves to everybody else. I mean, you might actually... Tell us the door. You've been running on the facts that come out in the public. I think that if you're a Republican senator and Trump lied and there's proof of it and you vote to convict him, I think that you will have more credibility in the eyes of your

constituents, but maybe I'm wrong. I think so. And if you go back to the Nixon era, remember it was the Republicans who went to Nixon and said, you do not have enough votes in the Senate to survive a trial. You will be convicted, and if you don't resign, that's what's going to happen. Do you think that's what happened with G7 and D'Areal? Do you think the Republicans went, dude, we can't,

we are all the ones that can't put you in the back, we're just trying to get this Ukraine shit under control. You do this, we can't possibly tow that line anymore. Do you think maybe that happened or did it, why, like, it was Republican pressure, right, that got him to, it would seem so, that's certainly the reporting,

I have no insight knowledge, but it does seem obvious that they were saying, like, okay, this is something you don't need. If you want us to keep defending you, don't add to our plate. Let us defend which are already on it. Yeah, Trump has all these mini-trumps though, like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell,

that seem to just refuse. Yeah, it's like maybe for a day, they'll kind of criticize him, and sure enough, they flip every goddamn time, right? To support him again. Yes. Outside the skills. Like, I should be allowed in there.

It's like, you are. And you ask questions. Yes. You're Jim Jordan. You're on the F and committee. You know this. Go ahead and go in. Yeah, it's like Trump.

Trump was one of the worst things that I've seen really was not just the takeover of the skiff, but this constant saying with a straight face that it's only Democrats who are doing the questioning. The Democrats and the North Republicans are in the room, they have equal rights to be there. And they don't have a cool stuff to leak. If they don't have cool stuff to leak, that's not our fault. Yeah. Sorry, your shit sucks. But that stunt was even more proof of the entire, I won't say the entire party, but a lot

of the parties just commitment to lying, right? In the water case. I imagine it was not as bad as it is right now. There was actual genuine bipartisanship then, and the difference, again, is the media, which has fostered this division of fact here, fact here, and you can't have alternative facts. But it also is gerrymandering where people are in such safe districts that they cannot, not only don't they have to,

but they can't vary from what their small group of supporters is supporting. And I'm sure every single Republican that stormed the skiff is in a very, very red, red, safe, safe district. It is interesting that these representatives who have had their constituencies for longer than the Trump has been president are turning their loyalty to the president first and foremost instead of these reps and almost forcing the hands of their reps is what it seems like. Well, I think they should be more loyal to America and to democracy.

I think my favorite thing I've heard this week is that I think PodSave America, somebody referred to Matt Gates as a human frat paddle, and I can't think of a better description for him. That's amazing. think of a better description for him. That's amazing. So well done, pod save. Let's see what else is going on. We get the Bolton testimony. That would be really interesting, because if Bolton testifies,

that takes away the whole deep state never-trump-er shit he can try to pull with Bill Taylor, that he did pull with Mueller, conflicts of interest, because he owes me golf money or whatever the shit that was. But to call Bill Taylor like a three decade diplomat, who was asked to come back by Mike Pompeo? Yes, personally asked by Pompeo who was appointed by Trump.

Yeah. And to call him a liar at Deep know, a liar at Deep State, never-Trumper, Rhino, whatever he says, is just absolutely ridiculous. But I would love to have these public hearings and hear from Bolton, Yvonnevich, Hill, Taylor, Sondland now. I mean, if he's saying there was a quidbroko, might as well get him up.

Round two. Yeah, and do that all in public. Be careful with your- You gotta be careful, you can't pick your witnesses. You have to put them all on because it has to be a fair hearing. And one of the reasons that Watergate was so effective was both Senator Irvin in the Senate hearings and Representative Rodino in the House Judiciary Committee really fought to have bipartisan support and participation.

And they didn't select, I mean, Haldeman testified and said John Dean was a liar. But people saw John Dean standing there, raising his hand and giving his testimony. They saw Haldeman and then facts developed. And then of course, we got the tapes, which showed that Haldeman was totally lying and that John Dean was totally telling the truth. That's certainly made a difference.

But to have all sides up there, I mean it has to be fair because if we're going to impeach, there has to be universal, they'll never be universal acceptance. But there has to be bipartisan acceptance of this. That's what America is all about, and we need to get that. Hey, it's AG, and it's so important that we take care of ourselves. And a big part of that is how we eat. But with everything, we're so busy with our jobs, our families, resisting, marching. Sometimes our nutrition can fall by the wayside. But Michael and Crystal, professional tennis players,

founded a company called Your Super. After Michael was diagnosed with cancer and Crystal started making super food mixes to help boost his immune system. And when they saw the impact that these mixes had on improving Michael's health, they made it their mission to share it with the world and improve people's health with the power of super plants. Their mixes are made from naturally dried organic,

whole foods and super foods, nothing else. And their supply chain is 100% transparent so you know you're getting the cleanest mix on the market. Since starting year super, I have more energy, my skin is clearer, and I just feel better. My current favorite mix is the super green mix, which works for me because I'm paleo, and I need the additional servings of veggies, along with the immunity boost, because I'm so busy, burning the candle at both ends, sometimes the stress can bring my immunity down. And I love the origin story here, I love the transparency and I love the product.

Get the cleanest super food and plant protein mixes at yoursuper.com. That's why you are super.com. Get 15% off your order when you use code A, G, it check out. Just go to yoursuper.com and don't forget to get 15% off with promo code A, G, it check out. You'll be glad you did. We're gonna take a couple quick questions here

in a minute. We got about 10 minutes left. I just wanted to really quick bring up that Flynn's lawyer, Sydney Powell, is now claiming that the FBI tampered with their interview notes and changed them and that the charges should be dropped immediately. Sounds legit. Like Martha Stewart stylestyle tamper.

Like that? Yeah, like actually physically changed. Like he's going to get a cooking show with Snoop Dogg. Yeah. Yeah. I just think that I don't know what Flynn is thinking, but he can't have his cake and eat it too. He's going to have to blow up his plea agreement.

And I think they could bring it just did. I think they could bring additional charges against him for all the shit that he did that he got out of for cooperating quote unquote and I just say a word on behalf of prosecutors and FBI agents and CIA agents who not only risk their lives every day for all of us but none of us ever had a political motivation. My job as a prosecutor was to do justice, to get the facts and to make a decision as to whether they supported going further

and to present the evidence to a neutral drangery who would then decide whether the evidence I presented was sufficient. And that's what they are all trying to do. And so this nonsense about everybody is out to get the president is just not true. It just isn't. That's not how the government works.

Yep. All right, we've got about seven, six minutes left. Are there any questions for any of us? Yes, sir. He asked why aren't the people who stormed the skiff because there were 41 I think and 13 are actually have access to these hearings. The other ones why aren't they in jail. They were asking to be arrested and taken out in handcuffs for the cameras. And so honestly it's kind of one of those at fuck off. I personally think I'm not really sure,

because I'm not there, but just ignore it, not ignore it. I mean, they should be looked into for having their security clearances revoked for taking phones inside of a skiff, but I think arresting them would have given them kind of what they wanted. Yeah. Any other questions?

I just don't understand how Donald Trump's not in handcuffs after he comes on television and says I need China to investigate. Well, you can indict a sitting president apparently. Well, hold on. And probably don't tell me. Wouldn't I go to jail? That is so... That's why I sit up apparently. Yeah.

And Barrel Howe brought it up too. Yeah. In her opinion, she's's like this LLC shit is stupid It is it's long been stupid. I wanted to indict Richard Nixon. We had the evidence. He was guilty It's not fair to indict his Cokin spiriters and to let the main leader go off like Cohen there is nothing in The Constitution that says you can't. It provides an alternative.

It provides an additional remedy, which is impeachment, but it doesn't say. And the argument on this issue was so absurd in the court. It was like, OK, so if the president is standing on Fifth Avenue and basically committing mass murder, killing, killing, killing, killing, could the police investigate him? No, said the representatives of the government. And they couldn't even stop him from shooting.

He would have to be allowed to continue to kill people. That's the extent to which the argument went. That's what they said in open court. Most ridiculous thing. Hi. First, late E.S. I'm sorry. Jill, I'm so excited to see you. Thank you. I have what is possibly not an answerable question. I'm not personally good at arguing what I understand intellectually and I'm traveling with pro-Trumpers.

They have argued that the Congress people who were allowed to be in the hearing were shut out that they were not allowed to be in there, and that if I'm not getting my information from Sean Hannity, who is the only one that properly researches these things, I am listening to liars. How do you answer that? And is there an answer, or is it a lost cause? And is that representative of possibly as much as 40% of our population? I'm almost like cut bait.

But what are you saying? No, I would always try to engage as long as the conversation is based on facts. And when you say that they aren't allowed into the room, that is not a fact. That is contrary to fact. The Democrats and the Republicans have equal access to being there and to asking questions. And indeed, some of those who were there

have asked questions and have been there. And you can't take that away. I think maybe what you could do is challenge them to find one Republican congressman who has said on tape that they have not been allowed to ask questions. Or maybe we can have field trips for Republicans and trubbers. We can all take them to Congress and then we should let them just get a little portal hole inside the room. Yeah, just so they can see for their own eyes.

I'm just a field trip. Field trip. They have to get permission slips and stuff. Hi, sir. How's it going? We've got just to give everyone a time check. We've got about three minutes. Okay, real quick. In the phone call with Ukraine, Trump said, do me the favor and investigate. And then in subsequent testimony, I think Taylor or one of them said They made Zelinski was supposed to announce that he had this investigation not just do it but to announce it to me Shows that it's just the shiny object to have out there and I'm trying to make sense of why we on bars going around Everywhere is it just part of the pageantry to say look I went I went. So there must be something going on or to try to.

I think what he's trying to do here, and this is also why Trump wanted Zelensky in a public box saying this. And Oshoran Goppa put it beautifully. This is propaganda. Because if you can get anyone to believe that perhaps it wasn't Russia that hacked our elections, you might be able to legitimately lift sanctions on Russia for hacking our elections. And that's, I think, really Trump's two main goals, or to lift sanctions and lift sanctions. Yeah, and it's the same reason that he was trying to get Komi to come out and just say that he wasn't under investigation, right?

Because as long as you can say it, like you said, that's essentially the same thing as if it were actually happening. Real, yeah. that's about optics. Hi. Just a very quick question. Do you think Mueller did a disservice to the country by not making his report more relatable to the average American? Because I think that crimes on the report are more egregious than even the Ukraine situation. But public opinion is much more in favor of Ukraine,

because it's very simple. It's very understandable. Well, Mueller wanted to put out the executive summaries and Bar Blockton from doing that. So I think he tried his level best to get, you know, a digestible version of it out there. And if you need one, we've got a 19 series episodes of us. I don't, but his testimony is that was not even,

I mean, most people didn't understand that. And I work at a university even, I mean, most people didn't understand that. And I work at a university and there are PhD people who didn't understand that. So I think that there was some disconnect with the American public in terms of how the findings were communicated. I agree with you. And it's not, this is not blaming Mueller. That's not the right place to put blame. But we need even with what Mueller released, there is enough evidence to say, oh my God, and I was one of the thousand federal prosecutors who

signed a letter saying there is enough evidence here to go ahead right now. You don't need anymore. It's in plain sight, it's there, it's laid out, but I think that the media and all of us have sort of failed. Donald Trump had that report down to six words, no collusion, no obstruction, I'm exonerated. And we don't have a six word answer. We don't even have a 60 word or a 600 word answer. And somehow we've have failed in communicating because the facts are there and somehow we need,

and I failed because I haven't been able to get it down to a digestible thing except to say, I'm telling you that there are indietable offenses in that report. That's pretty sure. There have been an instance, Cliff. Multiple. All right, we have time for one last question, Sarah.

Do you ever feel like or just a median general that you're doing a disservice to the public by focusing on the sensationalized aspects of the administration, such as Roshigate, the whole impeachment inquiry, instead of the actual substantive criticisms, like collusion with payday lenders, the fact that there's more troops in the Middle East and at the start of the term and things like that. Yeah, we try to cover everything. It's just so much. It's so voluminous, the amount of crimes and corruption and lies and everything that comes out of this white house. So we're trying to focus, you know, our focus is, at Muller She wrote, was Muller investigation.

Now we're focusing on current impeachment and Ukraine simply because there's enough to fill two hour shows on that alone. But I agree with you. I think that it's to cover these other issues is critical. And I feel like there's just not enough hours in the day. Maybe. I don't know what you would say. Anyone on the panel aware that there's

more troops in the Middle East now than at the start of the administration, even though they're currently getting credit for ending endless wars? I was aware of that. Yes. Yes. Yeah. I think that's important.

And now they're just moving them to guard Syrian oil fields and oil fields in Saudi Arabia and also moving them to a rack. But yeah, we have sent more troops over than there were at the beginning of this administration, even though he ran on bringing the troops home here for sure. Everybody, thank you so much for your thoughtful questions. I've been AG, I want to thank Jill Winebanks for joining us today. Really, really incredible to have you here and to have your insights on impeachment. Jordan, thank you, Amanda, thank you. Thank you, thank you guys, seriously. We couldn't do this without you and we need you and we love you. And take care of yourselves. I'm A.G. Thank you.

Okay. Mollershoe Road is executive produced and directed by A.G. and Jordan Coburn with engineering and editing by Mackenzie Mazell and Starburn's industries. Our marketing manager, production and social media direction is by Amanda Reader, fact checking your research by A.G. Jordan Coburn and Amanda Reader, and our Knowledgeable listeners. Our web design and branding are by Joao Reader with Moxie Design Studios and our website is mullishirope.com. Season 4 of How We Win Is Here. For the past four years, we've been making history in critical elections all over the

country. And last year, we made history again by expanding our majority in the Senate, eating election denying Republicans and crucial state house races, and fighting back a non-existent red wave. But the Maga Republicans who plotted and pardoned the attempted overthrow of our government now control the house. Thanks to gerrymandered maps and repressive anti-voter laws. In a 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-Ancona. And this is How We Win. The S-W Media.