Jack - Russia, If You’re Still Listening (feat. Pete Strzok)

Episode Date: April 3, 2022

This week: stories about Flynn’s FARA partner Bijan Kian; a big loss in court for our old friend Oleg Deripaska; autocracy versus democracy and the parallels between Russia and Republicans in the United States; yet another successful call from the former guy to get Russia’s help against political opponents. We also have a new indictment in the Fantasy Indictment League and the connection to current events might not be overtly apparent at first, but I’ll tie it all together with Peter Strzok. The Mueller Report - Pt. 5Google Podcasts -https://bit.ly/3J82yFQSupercast - https://dailybeans.supercast.com/dashboard/channels/episodes/21818Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/posts/27787064Peter Strzok:https://twitter.com/petestrzokFollow AG on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gill https://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://dailybeans.supercast.tech/Orhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeans

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 easygoing, 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 SwitchCraft for supporting this podcast. SwitchCraft is a mobile game with a unique blend of TV-worthy writing, choose your own adventure style narratives, and thousands of magical match three levels. Download SwitchCraft for free and unlock the magic mystery. And today's show is also brought to you by our new sponsor, and magical match three levels. Download Switchcraft for free and unlock the Magic Mystery. And today's show is also brought to you by our new sponsor, JennyCane.com.

Create the space you'll never want to leave and get 15% off your first order. Go to J-E-N-N-I-K-A-Y-N-E.com and use my code MSW at checkout. Hey all, this is Glenn Kirschner and you're listening to Mueller She Wrote. 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. I didn't have, and I have communications with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin for? I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about a mother than he will respect me. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. So, it is political. You're a communist!

No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring. Like all members of the oldest profession I'm a capitalist. Hello and welcome to Muller She Wrote. I'm your host, A.G. Alison Gil. We have some important stories for you today on Flynn's phara partner, Bijan Kean, a big loss in court for our old friend, Oleg Darapasca, autocracy versus democracy and the parallels between Russia and Republicans in the United States, and yet another successful call from the former guy to get Russia's help against political opponents. We also have a new indictment in the fantasy indictment league and the connection to current events might not be overtly apparent at first, but I will tie it all together.

I promise and I'll do that with Pete's truck. And with that, let's jump in with just the facts. All right. First up, a former business partner of Trump's National Security Advisor Mike Flynn scored a major legal victory Friday as a federal judge ordered a new trial for the Iranian-born businessman on charges that he acted as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey as Donald Rand for President in 2016. The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga in Alexandria, Virginia was the

latest lurch in a legal rollercoaster ride for B. Jan. Refekian, who was found guilty by a jury following a 2019 trial, then had his two felony convictions thrown out by Judge Trenga only to see the guilty verdicts reinstated by an appeals court last March. The decision from the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trenga's initial decision to toss out the jury verdicts but left open a narrow path for Rafiki and to win a new trial. Trenga's ruling Friday seized that opening, finding that the jury's guilty verdicts were against the great weight of the evidence and should be set aside. Quote, Rafiki and his convictions are based on weak inferences, many built upon

one another, drawn from narrowly framed circumstantial evidence, without a regard to a broader context that substantially undercuts any inculpatory inferences. That's from Trenga, who's an appointee of George W. Bush. Quote, the evidence as a whole allows only the weakest inference that Rafiki and had agreed to operate as a Turkish agent subject to its direction or control. Unquote.

Now, during Rafiki's trial, two and a half years ago, prosecutors argued that while working for Flynn's consulting firm, Reveke in a range of $600,000 contact, excuse me, contract from a Dutch company that was essentially a front for the Turkish government. Under the pact, Flynn Intel Group agreed to produce research, generate publicity, and lobby officials to take action against a Turkish-born cleric who went into exile in Pennsylvania in 1999, and that's what Tula Gulen. We've talked about him extensively on the Mollarshi Road show.

Turkish President recap Erdogan had accused and still accuses Gulen of backing attempts of coups in Turkey and establishing a network of followers who are undermining the state. For years, Erdogan has unsuccessfully sought to persuade US officials to expel Gulen or extradite him to face charges in Turkey. Gulen, who lives in Pennsylvania, has denied any involvement in coup efforts. And in the ruling Friday, Trenga emphasized that working in parallel with the foreign government

and even coordinating some activities with that government does not make one an agent of that government under US law. Quote, a person must do more than act in parallel with a foreign government's interest, pursue a mutual goal, or privately pledge personal alliance to such a government. That's in his 51-page opinion. Trenge also suggested the government's handling of Flynn's role and of classified evidence about his dealings with Turkey had complicated Revekeans trial and may have led jurors to infer Revekeans guilt even though Flynn was not charged in the case.

In December 2017 Flynn pled guilty to a false statement charge, as we know, brought by a Mueller's team. Under Flynn's deal with the government, he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and was promised he would not face charges in the Turkey-related probe. He was supposed to be the star witness at Reficians trial. But of course, the relationship between prosecutors and new attorney for Flynn, Sidney Powell grew acrimonious in the weeks before the trial and as a result prosecutors changed course and dumped all plans to call Flynn as a witness. They instead labeled him a co-conspirator, allowing some evidence of his dealings with Rafiki and to be admitted at trial.

Quote, the government's relabeling of Flynn as a co-conspirator on the eve of trial was not based on any new evidence, but rather, it its assessment that Flynn's testimony would not advance its case against Refecchian. And that's also from Trenga. As the dispute with the government mushroomed, Flynn sought to back out of his guilty plea, and we know that a judge in Washington had not yet resolved the motion when Trump granted Flynn a full pardon. That was a couple of weeks after the 2020 election. Just before Refecchian's, prosecutors unveiled a summary of classified evidence

that Turkey was working through Flynn to influence then-Canada Trump during the 2016 election. The judge says that the summary, which was read to jurors, could be fairly read either as helpful to Reveke's case or as essentially neutral, since it said nothing about Revekean. But Tranga indicated he was troubled that the prosecutor's arguments about the summary seemed to turn the summary into a liability for Reficion. Trenga's decision is in binding on other judges, but if others follow his reasoning,

it could be harder for prosecutors to pursue similar cases against people working to achieve smaller policy goals to foreign governments, where evidence of explicit direction from those governments is murky. Prosecutors now face a decision about whether to follow through with another trial for Ruffikean or drop the case or seek relief again from the fourth circuit. It's unclear whether the appeals court would entertain such an effort given the present posture of the case. A Trenga set a hearing for April 20 to set a possible new trial date should the United States elect to proceed with a new trial, that spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Virginia didn't respond to a message seeking comment and attorney for Revegi and also

declined to comment. And in other news, Russian oligarch Oleg Darapaska had an appeal to remove sanctions that the U.S. placed on him in 2018, and that was rejected, according to court documents. Darapaska was challenging the federal judge ruling from 2021, which dismissed a lawsuit the oligarch filed in response to sanctions. The mogul, who founded the aluminum giant Rousal, faced sanctions following Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea territory in 2014, due to ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and that's according to documents from the U.S. Court of Appeals and the District of

Columbia Circuit. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February, a litany of Russian oligarchs have had their assets frozen, their overseas properties raided, their yachts seized. And Derepaska is not among the oligarchs sanctioned recently, but the sanctions from 2018 have devastated his wealth as a business person. And also his reputation. Reputation, okay. McCourt said Derepaska is reasoning that the sanctions are,

is that the sanctions are unlawfulful and that they don't lack merit. Quote in short, there's no evidence that the government acted for reasons other than those it provided much less that it stated the reasons were contrived. Not so according to the court document. The US Treasury Department Office of Foreign Asset Control, that's OFAC, imposed sanctions on Derepaska because he allegedly acted on behalf of a senior Russian official and because of his ties to the Russian state energy sector. Quote, our review of the classified records confirmed that OFAC has sufficient evidence for

sanctions. That's the DC Circuit conclusion. OFAC also notes Derepaska has previously been investigated for money laundering, has bribed government official, ordered the murder of a businessman, and has ties to Russian organized crime. A lawyer for the tycoon did not respond to Reuters' request for comment. Last month, squatters occupied his London mansion and protest over Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That happened.

Derapasca has spoken out against what Moscow has called a special operation in Ukraine. And this morning, a friend sent me this story from Ann Applebaum at the Atlantic. She writes in February of 94, in the Grand ballroom of the town hall in Hamburg, Germany, the president of Estonia gave a speech, standing before an audience in an evening dress, Lenart Marie praised the values of the democratic world that Estonia aspired to join. The freedom of every individual, quote, the freedom of the economy and trade, as well as the freedom of the mind of culture, of science, are inseparably interconnected.

He told the burgers of Hamburg, quote, they form the prerequisite of a viable democracy. His country, having regained its independence from the Soviet Union three years earlier, believed in these values, quote, the Estonian people never abandoned their faith in this freedom during the decades of totalitarian oppression. Now, Mary had also come to deliver a warning.

Freedom in Estonia and in Europe could soon be under threat. Russian President Boris Yeltsin and the circles around him were returning to the language of imperialism, speaking of Russia as a primus inner Paris, the first among equals in the former Soviet Empire. In 94, Moscow had already was already seething with the language of resentment, aggression, and imperial nostalgia. The Russian state was developing an illiberal vision of the world, and even then was preparing to enforce it.

Mary called the democratic world to push back. The West should, quote, make it emphatically clear to the Russian leadership that another imperialist expansion will not stand a chance. At that, the deputy mayor of St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin, got up and walked out. Mary's fears were that the time shared in all of the formerly captive nations of Central and Eastern Europe, and they were strong enough to persuade governments in Estonia, Poland, and elsewhere to campaign for admission to NATO. And they succeeded, because nobody in Washington, London, or Berlin believed that the new members

mattered. The Soviet Union was gone. The deputy mayor of St. Petersburg was not an important person and Estonia would never need to be defended. And that was why neither Bill Clinton nor GW Bush made much of an attempt to arm or reinforce the new NATO members. Only in 2014 did the Obama administration finally place this small number of American troops in the region, largely in an effort to reassure allies after the first Russian invasion of Ukraine. After.

Nobody else anywhere in the Western world felt any threat at all. For 30 years, Western oil, well, I guess maybe Mitt Romney. For 30 years, Western oil and gas companies piled into Russia partnering with oligarchs who had openly stolen the assets they controlled. Western financial institutions did lucrative business in Russia as well, setting up systems to allow those same Russian clubocrats to export their stolen money and keep it parked anonymously in Western property and banks. We convinced ourselves there was no harm in enriching dictators

and their cronies. Trade we imagine would transform our trading partners. Wealth would bring liberalism, capitalism would bring democracy and democracy would bring peace. After all, it had happened before, following the cataclysm in 1939 and 1945, Europeans had indeed collectively abandoned wars of imperial terror or territorial conquest. They stopped dreaming of eliminating one another. Instead, the continent that had been the source of the two worst wars in the world, and the world that the world had ever known, created the European Union, an organized, an organization designed to find negotiated solutions to conflicts and promote cooperation, commerce trade, etc.

And because of Europe's metamorphosis, and especially because of the extraordinary transformation of Germany from a Nazi dictatorship into the engine of the continent's integration and prosperity, Europeans and Americans alike believed they had created a set of rules that would preserve peace, not only in their own continents, but eventually the whole world. This liberal world order relied on the mantra of never again, never again with their begenocide, never again with large nations and race smaller nations from the map, never again would we be taken in by dictators who used the language of mass murder, at least in Europe, we would know how to react when we heard it.

But while we were happily living under the illusion that never again meant something real, the leaders of Russia, owners of the world's largest nuclear arsenal, were reconstructing an army and a propaganda machine designed to facilitate mass murder as well as a mafia state controlled by a tiny number of men and bearing no resemblance to Western capitalism. And for a long time, too long, the custodians of the liberal world order refused to understand those changes.

They looked away when Russia pacified Chechnya by murdering tens of thousands of people. When Russia bombed schools and hospitals in Syria, Western leaders decided that it wasn't their problem. When Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time, they found reasons not to worry. Surely Putin would be satisfied by the annexation of Crimea. When Russia invaded Ukraine a second time occupying part of the Dombas, they were sure he would be sensible enough to stop. Even when the Russians having grown rich on the kleptocracy we facilitated.

We facilitated. Bought Western politicians, funded far-right extremist movements, and ran disinformation campaigns during American and European democratic elections, the leaders of America and Europe still refused to take them seriously. It was just some posts on Facebook, right? So what? We didn't believe we were at war with Russia. We believed instead we were safe and free, protected by treaties, by border guarantees,

and by the norms and rules of the liberal world order. But with this, and the third and more most brutal invasion of Ukraine, the fecuity of those beliefs was revealed. The Russian President openly denied the existence of legitimate Ukrainian state. Quote, Russians and Ukrainians, he said, were one people, a single whole. His army targeted civilians, hospitals and schools, his policies aimed to create refugees so as to destabilize Western Europe. Never again was exposed as an empty slogan while a genocide plan took shape in front of our eyes, right along the European Union's Eastern border.

Other autocracies watched to see what we would do about it. For Russia isn't the only nation in the world that covet its neighbor's territory that seek to destroy entire populations that has no qualms about whether to use mass violence. North Korea can attack South Korea at any time and has nuclear weapons that can hitch pan. China seeks to eliminate the Uyghurs as a distinct ethnic group and has imperial designs on Taiwan. We can't turn the clock back to 1994 to see what would have happened

had we heated Mary's warning, but we can face the future with honesty. We can name the challenges and prepare to meet them. There is no natural liberal world order and there are no rules without someone to enforce them. That's one point. Another is if we don't have any means to deliver our messages to the autocratic world, no one will hear them. Another point and she goes into very big detail on these points. So I

really recommend you read this article. Trading with autocrats promotes autocracy, not democracy. Very good point. We need dramatic and profound shift in our energy consumption and not only because of climate change. Thank you. Take democracy seriously. Teach it, debate it, improve it, defend it. Maybe there is no natural liberal world order, but there are liberal societies, open and free countries that offer a better chance for people to live useful lives than close dictatorships do. And she goes on to say, perhaps in the aftermath of this crisis, we can learn something from the Ukrainians. For decades now, we've been fighting a culture war

between liberal values on the one hand and muscular forms of patriotism on the other. The Ukrainians are showing us a way to have both. As soon as the attacks began, they overcame their many political divisions, which are no less bitter than ours, and they picked up weapons to fight for their sovereignty and their democracy. They demonstrated that it's possible to be a patriot and a believer

in an open society that a democracy can be stronger and fiercer than its opponents, precisely because there is no liberal world order, no norms and no rules. We must fight ferociously for the values and the hopes of liberalism if we want our open societies to continue to exist. Again, I urge everyone to locate this article in the Atlantic and Applebaum share it widely with everyone you know. We'll be right back with the fantasy and diamond league and some input from Pete's truck. Stay with us. Hey, everybody, it's AG and I know from experience that decorating home can be a bit challenging. As you know, in the past couple years, I gutted my entire house,

got rid of everything and brand new, and better everything. And Jenny Kane has really helped me out. They have everything you need. From Classic Furniture to sophisticated accent pieces, there's something for every room, style and taste. JennyKane.com is sponsoring Muller Shee Road and they're offering you 15% off your first order when you use code MSW at checkout. There's an effort list California elegance to Jenny Kane and the Jenny Kane home collection and they have the perfect pieces for any room, whether it's a candle or a throw or a sofa.

You know I have the alpaca throw and now I've got my eye on the Brentwood Blue Clay chair. There's a handcrafted accent chair and ivory wool blue clay that's perfect for your bedroom or living room or your den, it would go in my bedroom. To get exclusive perks and benefits like birthday surprises and early access to new launches, join Jenny Kane rewards and you've been earned up to 10% back on all your purchases.

Join today, you'll get 100 points right off the top. Get 15% off your first order when you use code MSW at checkout. That's 15% off your first order at Jenny Kane, J-E-N-N-I-K-A-Y-N-E.com and use promo code MSW. And today's show is also brought to you by my new favorite game. It's called Switchcraft. It's absolutely stunning, the visuals, the storyline, the characters, and you know, most match three games

are pretty fun, but they're also a lot of them are the same. Occasionally, the themes or characters might change or the colors, but overall, the format remains the same, and there's no compelling story to keep you going. Until now, Switchcraft is a fresh take on a match-three game. Your actions and your choices reveal the story of a beautiful, magical, and gripping graphic novel.

With Switchcraft, you'll find TV worthy writing, a choose your own adventure-style narrative and thousands of magical match-three levels. The art is exquisite. The characters are very interesting. I love Switchcraft's originality. The story includes over 85 characters from a variety of cultural backgrounds

as well as differently abled and LGBTQ plus characters. A thousand of levels await you as the story unfolds, and this game never gets boring because the storyline is so captivating. I want to keep playing to see what happens next. This story begins with a disappearance of your best friend from Wizarding School, and you need to solve the mystery of her disappearance using your magical magic three skills. It's awesome, so download Switchcraft for free now and unlock the magical mystery. using your magical magic three skills. It's awesome, so download Switchcraft for free now and unlock the magical mystery. All right, everybody, welcome back.

It's time for the fantasy indictment leak. I'm gonna be a di-t-it! No, it is gonna be a di-it! I'm gonna be a di-it! And di-it! I'm gonna be a di-it! Or that they can't, it's gonna be okay. Just calm down.

I can't calm down, I'm gonna be a di-it! All right, a Maryland man has been indicted with Wilford Transmission and Retention of National Defense Information. If that's N-D-I, I can't hold down, I'm gonna be dead! All right, a Maryland man has been indicted with willful transmission and retention of national defense information. That's NDI in an indictment on sealed today in the District of Maryland. According to court documents, as an employee of the National Security Agency, NSA,

Mark Robert Unkenholtz, 60 of Hanover, held a top secret SCI clearance and had lawful access to classified information relating to national defense that was closely held by the government. As detailed in the indictment, national security information is classified as top secret, secret, or confidential. Only individuals with the appropriate security clearance could have authorized access to such classified national security information. All classified information

can only be stored in an approved facility and container. I like that sentence. All classified information can only be stored in an approved facility and container. So not Mar-a-Lago, not a filing box. According to the 26 count indictment, on 13 occasions between February 14, 2018 and June 1, 2020, Unkin holds lawfully having possession of access to and control over NDI, which he had reason to believe could be used to injure the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, he willfully transmitted that information to another person who was not entitled to receive it. The indictment alleges that the information

Unconholz transmitted was classified at the secret and top secret SCI levels and that Unconholz transmitted the classified information using his personal email address to the other person's private company email address. The person receiving the information held the top secret SCI clearance from April 2016 until about June 2019, while employed at a company referred to in the indictment as company one. From July 2019 until January 2021, the person worked for a company referred to as company

two and was not authorized to access or receive classified information. The indictment alleges that Unkenholt's personal email address and the company email of the person receiving the information were not authorized storage locations for classified NDI. Unkenholt's allegedly retained the classified NDI within his personal email address. And joining me to discuss the Unkenholt's indictment is 26 year FBI and Army vet and author of the New York Times best seller compromise Peter struck Hey Peter. How's it going? Hey, good. How are you?

Good. Lots of really big justice news coming out in the last couple of days, but I wanted to talk to you about something that no one was really talking about because that's going to how I operate. And that's this indictment. This 13 count indictment shows that our Department of Justice does arrest people who mishandle top secret documents when they have the evidence to do so. And I want to ask you, because you know, you did the, you've, you've been a part of a couple of classified document mishandling situations in the past.

And I wanted to ask you about differences, maybe in similarities between a case like this. And how Donald Trump has allegedly mishhandled classified information in that whole thing with the National Archives and the 15 boxes of material he took from the White House or whether we can even draw any similarities here. Yeah, I would hesitate to draw any similarities. I mean, looking through the press release and the indictment, it's clear that the person, the two people who are talking to each other, there appears to at least be a legitimate work connection. And I know whether this was pursuant to a legitimate work purpose isn't clear.

But, you know, the, the, I would say it uncult's was the NSA employee did apparently have lawful position of the classified information, had a job where a component of that work was interfacing with private industry. The person she, we know, is all, they don't give an identity, but they do give up. Pranam. We know that she had a clearance, at least at the beginning of this, and was working in a job where she needed that clearance. So it doesn't say that their interaction was part of or extended from an official relationship

as part of his work, but at least at the beginning, when the information was exchanged, it was between two clearance holders. And then later, she moved with position where she didn't have a clearance. Now underlying all this, it appears it was not done, it was not being done on an authorized system. In other words, this was not taking place over J-Wix or Siprinet, which are the systems, the automated systems, which are authorized to transmit T-S information or secret information. But there's a lot we don't know. We don't know whether, you know, clearly because this person had a clearance, they weren't somebody at Kaspersky labs. In Russia, they weren't somebody working at a French antivirus company outside of Paris. They weren't, you know, there were somebody who had at least at one point in time a U.S. government security clearance. So I would hesitate to draw a lot of any further

inferences from that other than to say at first blush this strikes me as very much kind of a run on the mill. Sort of misunderstanding case that the FBI investigated and would prosecute. It's interesting she is not identified by name nor has she been charged. It's not clear whether or not she will be charged and there are a number of reasons one she might be. Facing charges in the future too, she might not have understood that the information she was receiving was classified

that they could only demonstrate that on one of the party sides. But I don't think, again, more information may come out, but at first blush, this doesn't strike me as particularly notable, other than, seems like a righteous case, seems like it should have been investigated. To your question about whether or not to apply it to Trump, I would not do that. I think there are very different circumstances here. It is Trump is complicated because he was at one point in time.

The president, he had the authority to declassify information. He continually got into trouble saying he was going to declassify things and they're not doing it and led to litigation because of that while he was still president. Certainly, you know, this came up in the context yesterday. Somebody asked a question on Twitter about, I hope Trump doesn't have a clearance anymore. Well, presidents don't have a clearance, right? Access to classified is a power that comes with the presidency. When you're elected a president, you have that power and authority to have classified information. And in fact, the president is the one who promulgates who gets a clearance.

So the clearance system is not something the president has ever subjected to. It is something that the president and ministers, you know, obviously, he delegates that down to the people who grant it. But when the president just says it comes with the presidency, it's taken away. So the minute Joe Biden is sworn in or whoever the next president is sworn in, the prior president loses their lawful access to classified. As a- But the current president can give these classified briefings to former presidents if they

so choose. Right. And by typically by a courtesy in the past, most presidents extended that courtesy to prior presidents. If they needed intelligence briefing, I know the last time I went up to Kennebunkport was while I was stationed at Bossa, and it was in the context of briefing something to the Bush family that involved some classified information. But early, I think it was January, like within weeks

of being inaugurated, Biden said, I think essentially, Trump had the threat. He has no need for access to classified information, and we're not going to be providing many briefings. So given that, when all this material is found at Mar-a-Lago, it isn't being, to the extent it is still classified, Trump does not have a clearance granted to him by the Cognosan Authority, which in this case trickles down from the President of the United States,

now Joe Biden, he doesn't have the authority to retain it. But it gets really complicated in terms of that isn't, the fact pattern of that is nothing like a routine, unlawful retention of a handling case. And so do I think there's potential criminal exposure there? Sure. Do I think it is as likely as not that Trump was, you know, people were saying, you know, they're passing around.

I think I read somewhere that, you know, is it Ashley Biden, Biden's daughter? You know, somebody had some fundraiser down in Florida. They're passing on copies of his diary. I heard diary. I have every expectation that if there was stuff in that pile that Trump thought was OG was neat, cool, whatever reason that he might be showing it off down at Mar-a-Lago to impress somebody because he had no sense of

any of the national security implications of what the material might be, other than it's kind of cool. So, you know, I hope there's an investigation going on. I would not be surprised if there were, you know, and is potential criminal exposure there, but I would not, I would not analogize these two things, these two cases at all. Yeah, totally. I just say there's really not much we can analogize it with because we haven't had an ex-president, you know, that I can think of that has done anything like this. And that would be kind of the only thing

we could drop parallels with because of the status of the president of the United States being able to declassify documents. And then, of course, having to go through the unprecedented task of, yes, but there's a process, but yes, does it apply to a president, but yet, you know, et cetera, et cetera. But for the first time, that's something that somebody's going to have to have to go through. And I know

that a lot of times prosecutors don't like to be the first time people, you know, they shy away from that if there's no precedent. And that's what I think, you know, a lot of people are worried about with regards to any potential crimes that the former president may have. Yeah. And that's where he lives, right? I mean, he lives in that area of like, nobody's ever done this before and it really wasn't intended at all for this but Trump's gonna push into that

and push his luck in advances and it'll slim your little interest to like whether it's everything for me, real estate valuations to retain classified information to meeting and calling on foreign adversaries to dig up dirt on this political up on it. So I mean, he'll just, you know, find that little gray area of the law where every moral boundary is well on one side and just charge right past that and dare somebody to correct it to

force them to do differently. And more often than not, finds that there's no pushback. So he keeps pushing. And this, I don't think this is any different. Yeah, I'm interested to see what happens with those White House call logs that look like they've been tampered with. We'll see. We'll see what happens there and you know, because then you have to be like, well, did he direct it? And was it somebody else? Will there be a fall guy? Was it even tampered with? Did somebody was somebody just stupid or can somebody claim they were just stupid and didn't know how to say, I didn't know you had to put that in there. Who knows where it'll go, but it'll be interesting.

And then that's how I think where we're an unprecedented territory. Yeah, and talk about, you know, when they're gonna go and they get to go to, but like, these times I've done investigations at the White House and primarily it was, most of them involved, like in a C staff, or people at the old executive office building, which is an ISO or building nada.

It's part of the White House complex, but it's not in the building you think of in the White House. But doing investigation there is rare, and it is complex for a lot of reasons, because you start jumping on top of all kinds of everybody's equities that aren't used to dealing with investigators. I mean, you have a lot of the White House communication systems run by the Department of Defense. You have the Secret Service as an equity that's involved. You have the presidency and all the privileges that the institution of the presidency and DOJ want to maintain.

So, you know, whereas an investigator would earn a run into an, you know, we're investigating somebody at DOE. You go there, you find the systems administrator and the people who run the telecoms at DOE and say, hey, we need the phone logs for this office and this phone and this computer. Doing that at the White House and the context of the president, talk about uncharted territory. I mean, I can't imagine the complexity of that. And so I hope it's going on.

Yeah, yeah. And I think we're starting to get some clues that it might. But we'll see. We will see. Like I said, at the top of this investigation and I think we're starting to get some clues that it might. But we'll see. We will see. Mike, because like I said at the top of this investigation before I hit record, if you've seen one investigation, you've seen one investigation. Thank you so much for your time. Everybody pick up compromised.

And we'll talk again soon. Pete Strock, follow everyone, follow him on Twitter. Important follow. Thanks. Thank you. All right. And with that, everyone, my fantasy indictment team largely remains the same. It's George Nader, super seating, Rudy, Giuliani, Sydney Powell, Matt Gaetz, L.A.K., Jacob

Engels. But I'm going to add and reek a Tariot super seating, seditious conspiracy charges, along with Bertino and Stewart. Those are the two other proud boys that were rated the same day Tariot was arrested. We will see what happens. Hoping something comes through with Matt Gaetz pretty soon. We now know that the Department of Justice is investigating the one-six insurrection beyond

just the boots on the ground. So that's good news too. We might see more indictments coming down the line. Check out the latest MSW book club, which is out today. And of course, I'll be back with the beans tomorrow. And Dana will be back Tuesday morning with me. So until then, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health, vote blue over Q. I've been AG and this is Mollarshi

Road. Mollarshi Road is written and produced by Allison Gill in partnership with MSW Media. Sound designed in engineering or by Molly Hockey. Jesse Egan is our copywriter and our art and web designer by Joelle Reader at Moxie Design Studios. Muller She wrote as a proud member of MSW Media, a group of creator-owned podcasts focused on news, justice, and politics. For more information, visit MSW Media dot com. Hi, I'm Dan Dunn, host of What We're Drinking With Dan Dunn, the most wildly entertaining adult beverage-themed podcast in the history of the medium.

That's right. The boozy best of the best, baby! And we have the cool celebrity promos to prove it. Check this out! Hi, I'm Allison Janney, and you're here with celebrity promos to prove it. Check this out. Hi I'm Allison Janney and you're here with me on What We're Drinking with Dan Dunn. And that's my sexy voice. Boom. Boom is right Academy Award winner Allison Janney.

As you can see, celebrities just love this show. How cool is that? Hey, this is Scottie Bippin and you're listening to the Dan Dunn show and wait, hold on. The name of the show is that? Hey, this is Scottie Pippin, and you're listening to the Dan Dunn Show, and wait, hold off. The name of the show is what? Alright, sure. Scottie Pippin momentarily forgot the show's name, but there's a first time for everything. Hey everyone, this is Scoot McNary.

I'm here with Dan Dunn on What Are You Drinking? What's it called again? Fine, twice. But famous people really do love this show. Hi, this is Will Forte, and you're, for some reason, listening to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn. Now, what do you mean for some reason, Will Forte? What's going on?

Hi, this is Kurt Russell. Listen, I escaped from New York, but I couldn't get the hell out of Dan Dunn's happy hour. Please send help. Send help. Oh, come on Kurt Russell. Can somebody out there please help me? I'm Dita Von Tees and you're listening to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn. Let me try one more time, come on.

Is it right? What we're drinking? It's amazing, isn't it? Is it amazing? Is it right? Ah, that's better. So be like Dita Von Tees friends and listen to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn,

available wherever you get your podcasts.