Jack - Schrödinger’s Impeachment (Feat. Renato Mariotti)

Episode Date: July 29, 2019

Join us as we discuss impeachment in the house judiciary, how Mueller won the day, and the news of the week from Lincoln Hall in chicago with former US Attorney and host of the On Topic podcast, Renato Mariotti. Brian Greer’s Quick Guide to CIPAhttps://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/  AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to know:Rule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C.  § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn’t on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

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 podcasts and start listening today. and more than a few spirited rants. Just visit patreon.com slash startmeup or wherever you get your podcasts and start listening today.

Thanks to Skillshare for supporting Muller She Wrote. Join the millions of students already learning on Skillshare today with a special offer just for our listeners. Get two months of Skillshare for free. That's right, Skillshare is offering Muller She Wrote listeners two months of unlimited access to over 25,000 classes for free.

And thanks to Beta Brand for supporting Muller She Wrote. Who says comfy can't be work appropriate? Beta Brand wants you to look good and feel good, even at the office. Go to betabrand.com slash AG and get 20% off your dress pant yoga pants today. And thanks to Figs for supporting Muller She Wrote. Figs is an amazing company that makes stylish and functional scrubs for the people who deserve it most. Figs is offering you 15 percent off your first purchase by using our code AG at where figs dot com. Hey, all, this is Glenn Kirshner 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 our position is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and i didn't have not 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 him other 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. Guys, how are you doing? I am not Florence Welch of Florence and the Machine. Somebody pointed that out to me.

It's really a funny story, too. One of our patrons was like, I pick out doppelgangers all the time. You look like Florence Welch from Florence and the Machine. And here's what happened. I used to be blonde, okay? Because I was trying to... It was easier with the gray. And I got into an Uber, and the Uber driver looked at me in the rearview mirror and thought I was Florence Welch. So I cut bangs and dyed my hair red.

So... I was like, let's do this cut bangs and dyed my hair red. So... I was like, let's do this. If we're gonna do it, let's do it all the way. I love Chicago. I'm so glad to be here right now. I haven't been to Chicago since I was in the Navy. In... In 1995.

I got here in February. Ugh. It was 45 below with the wind chill. It was polar vortex year, I think. First one, I'm sure. Many more to come. But I absolutely love this town. I'm from the Midwest.

I'm from Akron, Ohio ow ow sorry everyone's like yeah, oh wait it's Akron I do love it there but I love the Midwest, I love the people

in the Midwest but here we have Chicago, we have this big city but it's like a small town, it feels like a small town to me it feels like the Midwest. I love the people in the Midwest. But here we have Chicago. We have this big city, but it's like a small town. It feels like a small town to me. It feels like the Midwestern love is here, and I just absolutely love the work ethic. You guys are seriously, honestly. When I got here and there was a festival outside, I was like, what is this?

And you guys immediately cheered me up. I am in the best mood ever. So how about that Mueller testimony? Woo-hoo! Supposed to be last week. They delayed it a week so everybody could get their five minutes. Their clean, tight five, as we call in the comedy industry. But I thought it went extremely well,

and we've got former U.S. attorney, host of On Topic, Renato Mariotti, is here tonight to give us his views on that as well, because I thought it was outstanding. I am 100%. It was exactly how we thought it would go, and I think that hopefully you guys listened to the podcast.

You were prepared for what to expect, and so I thought it was absolutely perfect, and I thought that Hakeem Jeffries and Ted Liu did an amazing job questioning, did what I wanted them to do, which was, you know, break down the three parts of what constitutes obstruction of justice. Would that be of crime? Yes. Okay. You didn't indict because of the OLC, right? And then he had to come back later and say, I mean, what I meant was... We know what you meant, buddy. It's cool.

Yeah. But then I thought what was great was Ken Buck, and we'll talk about him in a little bit. Surprise the fuck out of that guy. What? Wait. Oh, shit. That guy probably got a stern talking to. So it was better than I expected, and I'm glad he did it.

But guys, it's not just me. It's all of you. And also, I want to bring out, because, you know, I'm AG, but with me as always, are Jaleesa Johnson and Jordan Coburn. Oh yeah. Nice. I like that music. That was smooth, smooth. Smooth jazz.

I'm not wearing a MAGA hat, guys. For those on the balcony, I don't know how good your vision is. You have to show everybody what it says. It says, get America high again. Okay. Right? Yes. Totally different message.

Yeah, y'all just passed that, right? Yeah. Good job. It's smoking here. You see passed that, right? Yeah. Hell yeah. Good job. It's smoking in here. What is happening? You see it in the light, yeah. There's a face down here like... I know the feeling, yes. That's fantastic.

Congratulations on that. Yeah, that's fantastic. Some people in here probably even worked on that campaign, so round of applause. Oh, yeah. Yes. Not here probably even worked on that campaign. So round of applause. Oh, yeah. Yes. Not to call anyone out, but yeah. Totally.

Definitely. Maybe it was the person who blew the smoke up in the air. Who knows? Oh, I don't know. I'm just saying. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

We have no real idea. Could be Kevin, you know? I don't know. Oh, Kevin. It's an inside joke. You have to know Kevin, I guess. Are we booing Kevin or are we booing weed? Moo, we're mooing.

I didn't think of an option C. Is Nunes here? Yeah, I was going to say. It's relevant, yeah. You know that guy went cow tipping when he was a kid. That was a thing in Akron. Is that a thing here? Do you guys go cow tipping?

Sounds violent. Probably. Yeah. Do you tip the cow literally? Yeah, the cow sleeps, you just tip the cow. That's rude. You give him $2 and then you go on with your day. That's what...

Capitalism, right? What are you going to do? That's what that is. I was at a restaurant. You do good things, cow. Thank you. They were doing some promotion at a restaurant where they would have cops come in and serve you

and so they had this thing, tip a cop. And I pictured pushing them over when they were asleep. Yeah, I could not get over when they were asleep. Yeah, I could not get away with that, AG. We're going cop tipping. You gotta do it for me. Push two of them over. No, blue lives matter.

Technically, it's true. Moo lives matter. Moo lives matter. Very cute. Yes, I like that. Happy ending. Happy cows. No cows were abused in the making of this bit.

We got no respect for cows coming out of San Diego. Respect the cows. Respect the police. It's a whole different show. This is devolved quickly. I think we should start a hashtag, MooLivesMatter. MooLivesMatter, yeah.

Sure. We can make anything trend now. It's not hard. Guys, we anything trend now. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, pretty. Technically. It's not hard. It's not hard. Guys, so we have a great show planned for you. We've got our corrections segment. We've got just the facts.

We're going to turn that into a quiz show. I know. We totally stole our set from Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. Don't tell them. Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Them. And then, of course, we have the interview with the host of On Topic. Renato Mariotti is here with us.

But first, to complete our panel tonight, please welcome, you know her as our Patreon member, director, and subscriber manager, comedian, and all-around incredible human being, please welcome Sarah Hershberger Valencia. Yeah. Hershberger Valencia. That's my jam.

Hi, Sarah. How are you? Hey, I'm great. How are you? I'm well, thank you. Everyone here has put me in the best mood. You guys are seriously the best people ever. Aww. And every venue we go to, right, all the venues that we've gone to, they're like, your fans are by far the nicest, most awesome,

best tipping, sweetheart, smart people that I would ever want to wait on. So thank you for being rad. And let's hear it for Lincoln Hall for putting this together for us. The staff here is incredible. Everyone's just been so kind. And you guys are just like the icing on the cake. And I know that you guys are always like, thank you for what you do. But thank you for listening because you are our therapy as well. So if you weren't here, this would be a really weird...

thing. So thank you for being here. So guys, everyone, let's kick off the show with my favorite new segment, which isn't really new anymore, Corrections. It's time to start.

It's hard for me to say I'm sorry. I apologize. Shut the fuck up I know, I keep changing that one I can't tell if I want Jane in Calamity Jane in there or not Do you like her? Do you like her? She's the best part of that whole cock sucking show

She is, if you haven't seen Deadwood you should watch it, it's great All right, we'll keep... She's the best part of that whole cock-sucking show. She is. If you haven't seen Deadwood, you should watch it. It's great. All right, so, corrections. I recently said during the premiere episode of our new podcast, The Daily Beans, that... Thank you.

That Trump filed to run for re-election the day after he was inaugurated. He actually filed the day of his inauguration. Much better. We assume he did that so that any event he held at his own properties would be considered a campaign event, making it legal to pay for with donations. I don't think anyone here donated any money

to the Trump campaign, but there's a lot of people out there who did. Suckers. And from last Sunday's main episode of Muller, she wrote, Jeffrey Epstein is not a pedophile that we know of. Pedophilia is a term reserved for prepubescent individuals, whereas I think afebophilia is for late teens, and hebophilia is reserved for earlier pubescent individuals.

If you're making that distinction, you've probably already lost. Yeah. Either way, it's still gross. Yeah, those words shouldn't exist. Still gross. Bad words. Still gross. Yeah, if you have to Google that.

Yeah. Yeah, terrible, terrible human being. I hope he rots in jail. And apparently, we got news that it was a suicide attempt they put him on suicide watch wow how do you confirm that?

was it his word? yeah well Jeffrey said so so there you go it sucks but I'm suspicious yeah I mean if you think about all the wealthy people who don't want him on the planet right now it's gotta be and these all the wealthy people who don't want him on the planet right now it's gotta be I mean

and these are the richest people in the world right the most powerful influential people in the world like dark web type people but horrible horrible human being and he's in jail good we got an email about my utilization of the quote don't fuck with me fellas

because I lumped it into my attribution of the show Dynasty. You know, if I do not get that approval, and please understand that I have controlling interest in Denver Carrington, I shall fire you on the spot and replace you with a boy that will approve the merger.

Okay, so that's obviously from the show Dynasty. I also know it from the movie Big Business. Okay, with Lily Tomlin, Bette Midler. Anyone? Excellent. But as I'm sure you know, Don't Fuck With Me, Fellas is Mommy Dearest. Really?

Yeah, so there's that. I wouldn't have guessed in that movie. I've never seen it, but Mommy Dearest. Yeah, I don't know anything she's talking about at all right now. Who says it? Does the little girl say that? No, she does. Mommy Dearest says Yeah, I don't know anything she's talking about at all right now. Who says it? Does the little girl say that? No, she does. Mommy Dearest says it.

Okay, okay. That'd be baller. Miss Joan Crawford. Yeah. It is a feel-good film. Yeah. Get high and watch it. Don't do that.

The last name of the governor of Puerto Rico is Roseo, not Rosayo, and he is name of the governor of Puerto Rico is Roseo, not Rosayo, and he is now the former governor of Puerto Rico. Yay! Whippa! That's what all my Puerto Rican fans in here. Whippa! That's what Puerto Ricans say.

Nice! Sounds like opa a little bit. It's cute. I like that. It makes me feel the same. Happy. Yeah, yeah. And Jordan, you were saying that you listened to that sound clip.

I think it was on 1A or something like that when they found out. Yeah, it was incredible. It was like the moment that protesters were protesting and switched over to celebrating immediately. And it was, yeah, it was incredible. It was like chilling in the best way. I can't find it anywhere, though, but I'll try to find it, and I'll put it in our newsletter or something. It was great.

It's amazing, and I think we called that episode Justice Envy. And Trump probably still thinks it's not got anything to do with America or him. It's one of the other three Mexicos. All right, guys, those are corrections. If you have any corrections for us, please visit MullersheWrote.com, click Contact, and select Corrections. Our motto is, we'll get it right eventually.

This episode of Mullershe Wrote is brought to you by Skillshare. Skillshare is an online learning community for creators who believe in the idea that we never stop learning Skillshare has more than 25,000 classes in design business and more and you'll discover countless ways to fuel your curiosity your creativity and your career so you can take classes in social media marketing technology mobile photography creative writing or even calligraphy, which I think I'm going to check out because I've always wanted to learn how to do that. So whether you're looking to start a side hustle in the gig economy or gain new skills to help you with current projects, Skillshare is there for your lifelong learning and continuing education goals. I recently

took a class on small business taxes so that I can participate in the discussions with my accountant and I'm armed with more knowledge about my own business finances. I'm also eyeing a video editing class. I want to take that so I can make and edit short videos and updates for our listeners. Join the millions of creators already learning on Skillshare today with a special offer just for our listeners. Get two months of Skillshare for free. That's right, Skillshare is offering Muller She Wrote listeners

two months of unlimited access to over 25,000 classes for free. To sign up, go to Skillshare.com slash AG. Again, that's Skillshare.com slash AG to start your two months now. That's Skillshare.com slash AG. You'll be glad you did. And now, we have turned just the facts into a quiz show. Panel, are you ready? Yes.

Yes. I'm going to take my thinking cap off. I'm glad you have that because when we used to do this quiz early on like when we started doing live shows here and there like maybe a year, year and a half ago I think our first show was at the comedy store. If you got a question wrong

I'd make you wear a MAGA hat. But now it's just so gross. It's like the equivalent of a KKK hood to me now, and I can't in good conscience do it, so now we have the Get America High Again hat, and I'm fine with that. Jaleesa. Yes.

First question's for you. Robert Swan Muller III testified before Congress this week for five hours, seven, about his findings. What two committees questioned him? The judiciary and the intelligence. Yes. Yes. And for anyone who thinks that the Mueller testimony didn't matter Or it bombed or fell flat or whatever

This is from the vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee Wrote this Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees Was a watershed moment At this point it is up to Congress to act on the evidence Of multiple counts of obstruction of justice Committed by the President And to continue our investigations into whether

He has committed other high crimes and misdemeanors. Despite assertions to the contrary by the President and his allies that special counsel's report and testimony are not the end of our investigations, we have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand jury documents referenced in the special counsel's report. In that filing, we have made it clear we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct. Did you say what they stated the purpose of that was? Yes. While many people believe that the beginning of an impeachment investigation

can only start with a vote in the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article 1 authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process. Yeah. So in layman's terms, impeach the motherfucker, right?

That's basically... This is a lot of words, but I like how you guys slowly were like, yeah, yeah. They spend a lot of time not saying the word impeach the motherfucker, right? That's basically, this is a lot of words, but I like how you guys slowly were like, yeah, yeah. They spend a lot of time not saying the word impeach. They do. It's very strange. I found that out. The floor is lava, but the word is impeach.

Oh, fuck. I'm drowning. They've gotten on board with saying racist, saying racist though explicitly which is good that they're saying that now it is progress yeah yeah nancy pelosi is just saying it flippantly now not flippantly you know what i mean because initially it was a whole thing for her to have to defend why she was saying in the first place and then because trump is such a piece of shit here we are again and she's just saying it this time with no pushback because it's true. Yep.

And then there was something about the House rules of decorum that had to do with that. She couldn't call somebody racist. So she's like, all right, fine. His words are racist. He's racist. And that was weird because the parliamentary guy who was in charge of striking it for the record was like, fuck this. Drop the gavel. He's like, I'm out. I'm not going to do that. And it was it was a really interesting scene. Chaos on the House floor. I think they they have a weird idea of chaos. One day there'll be a reality show on C-SPAN. I know it. It's just

going to be so weird. MTV. Yeahtv yeah it's gonna be like real housewives oh totally yeah real lawmakers or congressmen of virginia i don't know yeah that's probably one of the ones rip off a weave though like a toupee oh yeah yeah see that i need to see that yo c-span raps yeah i would watch it uh headbangers Ball is my favorite Under 120 minutes actually Okay Hot flashes That's how old I am

Jordan, under the federal rules of criminal procedure What rule governs the secrecy of grand jury proceedings And when grand jury materials can be disclosed Rule 6E And I don't know the rest secrecy of grand jury proceedings, and when grand jury materials can be disclosed. Rule 6E, and I don't know the rest. That's okay. 6E is good. More than I do. It's specifically 6E3EI.

Or one. Little Roman numeral one. Underpants one. Under exceptions, the court may authorize disclosure at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs of grand jury matter preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding. That is important because Jerry Nadler, as we know, chair of the House Judiciary, who's responsible for impeachment,

is seeking the Mueller grand jury materials, as we just discussed, as part of its investigation into whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment. So whether you call it an impeachment inquiry or whether you call it preliminarily too, it is still a judicial proceeding. I personally think it's an impeachment inquiry, but there's a lot of factors to consider.

We have a legal expert here to help us. Renata will be out later. My feelings, I feel like it's impeachment, but feelings aren't always the law. They seem so happy during that press conference where people were asking them,

is this that? They were like giddily trying to like... Almost. I loved when Jerry and Abra were like, is this impeachment essentially you know in effect it is fucking essential

and Raskin was like yeah it's pretty much next question so and you know they did that whole vote on the House floor to circumvent the full House vote, so they don't even have to do that anymore. So we'll see. We'll ask Renato.

He knows exactly, I can guarantee you, he knows exactly what's going on with this. So it's going to be great. Sarah, what senator blocked four bipartisan election security bills this week, despite testimony from Mueller and FBI Director Christopher Wray's warnings that the Russians are hacking us to interfere with our election as we speak. Wait, is that a Chicago thing? It's like a Slytherin thing.

I like that. I like that. Yeah. Team Slytherin. Am I in San Francisco right now? They do that. They do that there. Eddie Izzard taught me that.

The answer, I feel like I'm on Jeopardy. The answer is, how do the, who is Mitch McConnell? Oh, yes. For 400? Correct.

Who the fuck is Mitch McConnell? That's a really good question, Sarah. I'm glad you brought that up. Who is Mitch McConnell? Who is Turtle Dick Mitch? Yeah. Who are you really? Yes.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell continues to block bipartisan election security bills, calling them a product of a witch hunt and a hoax and a conspiracy theory. But Russian election interference is not a hoax. It's not a conspiracy theory. As far back as January 2017, remember when the intel community put out that report

saying Russia hacked our elections in favor of Trump? And then there's the continual evidence being put forth, and now Robert Mueller's report, the whole entire Volume 1, and his testimony and the indictments of Russians. And he also testified that we haven't done nearly enough to stop the Russians, and he said, I believe they're attacking us as we sit here. And to Trump's FBI Director Wray testifying this week that we are under attack and the 2020 elections are vulnerable and that Russians are attempting to diminish our faith in our own election process. And now the Senate Intel Committee, headed by a Republican, has put out a 67-page heavily redacted report showing we are being infiltrated as we speak.

Yet this administration and Mitch McConnell do nothing could it have to do with that zillion dollar aluminum plant deal in Mitch's home state of Kentucky in cooperation with Oleg Deripaska who doesn't want us to call him an oligarch anymore yeah Kentucky fried chicken

shit that's what we call it no offense to Kentucky and chicken maybe that's what we call it yeah no offense to kentucky and chicken i love maybe it's a 7.25 million dollars mitch took from uh russians yeah who's looking into that or at least when i hope uh i know crew is looking into it but you know i i would hope i would like to think that the senate intel committee was looking into that we'll see priorities sadly yes or it's just you know trump's thin skin when it comes to the legitimacy of his penis um illegitimate penis would be a great like porn title i can see that

yeah legitimate penis you need to write a rap about that. Yeah, something needs to happen. I can flow. I can do it. No, you can't. Jaleesa, Michael Flynn's ex-lobbying partner was found guilty this week and convicted of failing to register as a foreign agent and lying about it. What is his name? Oh, Sidney I've Got the Powell. Nope, that's his lawyer.

Oh, okay. That's my favorite nickname for him, though. So it's not Flynn himself, right? No, who's the guy who just went on trial and was found guilty of lobbying for turkey with Flynn? Oh, you said I know this guy. I appreciate your information. We have a friend who's a comedian

that has the same first name as him. The same first name as? As this guy. As this? We have a big, giant comedian friend. Yes. And he just had a baby, and he has the same first name as this guy.

Okay. Oh. Who's having babies? Oh, oh, Bijan. Yeah. God, I wish I knew his last name, but it's so hard to pronounce. It's Rafik. Bijan Kian. You got it.

You got it. Bijan Kian. That's all I need? It's longer than that, right? You got it. Yeah, because his real name is Rafikian. I'll take it. Thank you. Yeah, wait. What is is Rafikian. I'll take it.

Thank you. Wait, what is the story behind why it is known as Kian? I think he just changed it for vanity purposes, I'm guessing. A stage name. Essentially. Is Rafikian the monkey in Lion King? Someone's very ready for that. Rafiki. Bij. Rafiki. Rafiki.

Bijan Rafiki. It is tight. Changes the whole story for me. Played by Robert Guillaume, the actor who brought us Benson. Thank you. Yeah, and of course, you know, this is he because Flynn was going to be a cooperating witness in that case in that trial right with the Bijan Kian trial and it was

funny because Bijan asked for it to be pushed back till the fall because his daughter was getting married in August and so the judge pushed it up to July sure pal nice and he's like but I'm guilty gotta be after her I won't be able to go

that'd be great if that's how they got the confession um but they only deliberated jury deliberated for four hours that's super fast for any jury and they came right back and said uh yeah he's. And then, but the judge had indicated, I think before the jury deliberated, that he was considering dismissing the charges. So we'll see if that, if they're able to, because he didn't think that they'd be able to sustain the conviction upon

appeal. So we'll see how it goes. I think that this is going to be kind of like a litmus test as to whether or not they're going to bring charges against Flynn for the exact same thing. Flynn crimed with Keon. Flynn was forgiven for that crime because he was

cooperating. Not so much as it turns out. I remember, and Sidney Powell, who you're talking about, his lawyer, she's a nut case. Sidney, I've got the power. I've got to say the whole thing it's like it's useless otherwise but yeah it's because and and you're so right to bring her up

because she is pretty much the one who i think is talking flynn out of being a cooperating witness and she's an anti-muller you know uh conspiracy theorist she's been telling you know flynn should give up his you know withdraw his plea and get a pardon trump should pardon him just pile of yeah i feel that's like such a dumb decision it must have only been motivated by some immense sense of confidence that's come from something sketchy right sketch like why yes or not definitely sketch yeah She's got anti-Mueller t-shirts on her website. Yeah, creeps on a mission. Creeps on a mission, yeah. So dumb too, right? Not even creative.

Very self-aware, yeah. It doesn't even rhyme. That's funny. Yeah, what is it? If you think he broke the law, it's time to play sketch or not. Totally sketch. Got to get that on a loop. So now he's a co-conspirator.

He's no longer a cooperating witness. And if they were able to maintain this conviction, I would think that prosecutors would go after Flynn. But he also still has to be sentenced by Sullivan, who didn't like his face in the first place. Yeah, he's like, you fucked with my flag I fucking hate your face anybody you know and look into treason on this fucker

and he had to walk that back like didn't mean to say the T word you know do you know AG do you know if the jury decision was unanimous yeah it has to be yeah in order to get a conviction they all have to

be uh unanimous okay so isn't there like something to be said for the fact just in regards to the judges maybe you know hesitancy about if it's going to hold up an appeal it's like the whole fucking jury yeah and that's what i think i think maybe um because they deliberated for such a short amount of time and they convicted him that i I don't see an appeal on the merits. I just don't see it. But, you know, this judge had doubts. So, yeah, and I remember you asking me, like, what the fuck is a jury for?

If you're going to come back and just take the charges away. But part of the criminal federal law says you have to be able to obtain and maintain a conviction. So we'll see what happens. But like I said, I think it's a litmus test. We could see Flynn be brought up on additional charges. Unless Sullivan's like, yeah, yeah, put him on your fantasy indictment league. Unless Sullivan's like, no, I'm putting him away for a long time.

I'm not listening to your zero. Who got off the hook, I'm sure, because Flynn was cooperating. So you're right. We could put his son on those. Be like, oh, you're not cooperating anymore? All right, kiss your stupid kid goodbye. Yeah, Trump would not do that.

We're going to separate that family and put the child in a cage. Oh! Oh! Hey! Hey! I think that's my favorite joke you've ever made. Yeah, yeah.

And that is the only time you're allowed to clap for that shit, too. Yeah. It's when it's Flynn's family. Yeah. Yeah, fuck that guy, too. Yeah. I hate them all. Jordan, can you name the Republican representative

from Colorado who asked Mueller if he could indict the president for obstruction of justice after he leaves office? Ken Buck. Yes. Yeah. Buck is fucked. He got the surprise of his life, boy,

when he asked if Mueller could indict the president after leaving office, and Mueller was like, yes. I feel like everyone knows that at this point. Like, how did he not know that? And then he reworded it. So you're saying he committed... So you're saying you could charge the president with obstruction of justice after he leaves office.

Yes. Yes. That was amazing. amazing he was quick yeah that was the quickest he'd been the whole hearing yes yep

true true correct yeah that's true yes he should have mic dropped that afterwards

yeah yeah it's like attached to the podium so you gotta slap it down or do that thing when the fucking republicans are mad and they just just push their little

squeaky microphone away. Assholes. Yeah. And we're gonna talk about the optics of the Mueller testimony when Renato comes out. He put out a great piece that Mueller did an awesome job,

and I think he did too. So, woo! Sarah. Yes. The House Judiciary is calling back a witness to clarify her testimony in light of a slew of unsealed documents in the Cohen case that show she was indeed present during the conversations

between Trump and Cohen about the hush money payments. What witness are we talking about? I will take lies for 800. Who is Hope Hicks? Yes. Y'all, Hope Hicks. You're gonna have to come back and tell somebody more. How's that my more? Hope Hicks is being called back to the judiciary because a few weeks ago during her half-assed shitty testimony,

she told Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee that she was not present during the discussions about the hush money payments between Cohen Trump and Trump org executives and inquirer executives. However, this week, a judge unsealed the Cohen warrants as if to say, oh really bitch? Maybe she meant like not mentally present, right? I can't believe that. I feel like I'm shaming people who talk like that. Because she's just such a cunt.

So he unsealed these Cohen warrants, which indicate that there are records of her being very involved in those conversations. During her testimony, she exerted absolute immunity about her time in the White House. And during the transition, Trump is really protective about that transition time. I find that

really, really interesting and very telling. That's not a real immunity, by the way. It's like a superpower. Absolute immunity. Because when you see community like that, executive immunity, it has to be like if you're talking to the president about policy, it's got to be specific instances where you can see community for specific things you can't

just blanket immunity it up and dang it i didn't say i can't tell you you don't even know you don't know yeah that's why we're asking you oh oh we do now pesky records yeah so yeah she truths and and of course we know that you you know you the hush money payment discussions occur during the campaign and they aren't covered by any sort of privilege because they occurred during uh in the commission of a crime okay cohen's in jail for it it's a crime and you can't there's a crime fraud okay? Cohen's in jail for it. It's a crime, and you can't, there's a crime fraud exception. No privilege immunizes you from criminal activity, except maybe white privilege.

So maybe she should just claim that. Guys, that is how we play Just the Facts. And we aren't going to do this sound again. And now, are you ready to play the Fantasy Indictment League? Yeah! I wanna be indicted! No wait, it's gonna be okay. Indicted!

I'm gonna be indicted! It's gonna be okay. Just calm down. I can't calm down! It's so weird we're not sued yet. The NFL's a little covety about their stuff. They have concussions to litigate. Yeah, bigger fish to fry.

We asked Renato to represent us in that case. Anyway, so this week I'm going to go, I'll go ahead and kick this off. And I'll put us here, AG, Julissa Johnson, Jordan Coburn. I'm going to go with Nader, because I've heard tell that it wasn't just in 2014 that he transported a 14-year-old boy from Europe. There's another case they're looking into in 2009 where he did the same thing. So I think George Nader is going to be facing

another superseding indictment for child trafficking and all that gross stuff. So I'm going to go with Nader. Julissa, who do you got? Based on the new documentary, I'm going with Brittany Kaiser. I think that's going to blow up. Yeah. It's called The Hack, is I think that's going to blow up. Yeah.

It's called The Hack. Is that right? Yeah, yeah, definitely. Jordan? Sorry, I had a beer burp. Okay. On the disgusting pedophile slash febophile? What did you say it was called?

A febophile and hebophile. Okay, well, anyway. On that train of delight. Yeah, the worst train ever. His attorney, Alan Dershowitz. Oh, yeah. Mister, I kept my underwear on, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

Mister, I left my underwear on, and I've had the perfect sex life yeah I'd rather watch my parents fuck to be honest my parents My parents are good looking people, you know? Who's that Igor guy? Remember? Igor. Yeah. Oh, yeah. There's two Igors. Yeah, there's not the driver of Epstein, but the other Igor.

That sounds about right. Igor is Session? No, it's not him. It's like one of the two partners of Epstein or something like that. Oh, he is Epstein related but not the driver? I think so. There's a lot of Igors in your circle. You know what?

I'm just going to put Igor. Yeah, we'll get around. Could be Sessions. Could be that dude. Could be the driver for Epstein. I'm just going to put Igor. Sounds good. There's a Dr. Igor Epstein who's a psychiatrist in Albany, New York,

I found. Oh, wow, that was quick. He probably needs to talk to somebody right now. Yeah, yeah, I put him on my list. Alright, Julissa. Alexander Nix. Nix. Yes. Jordan.

Tom Barrick. Dick. I'm keeping him on forever keep it alive I'm going to go with we'll put Flynn on here it's early but I'm excited I'll do Trumporg so what is happening with that I'm guessing that they're looking for documents now well it's just

i mean it's essentially like kind of fizzled out right for now but is that like a mens rea issue or something or i don't know but they're investigating it um so basically the southern district of new york was looking into the trump org's handling of the hush money payments when cohen showed him the check signed by Weisselberg, is that right? And who was given partial immunity and Trump Jr. and Trump. And I honestly think that they probably found wrongdoing, but because of the OLC memo that says you can't indict a sitting president and Southern District of New York falls under that you know um under that

memo they have to abide by that it's a bar joint and I think they couldn't indict Trump what's up with Junior I don't know but uh I do know that they're investigating it now in the Congress so we'll see how that goes but yeah we'll put Trump Oregon here for sure okay I'm gonna do Trump inaugural I'm going to do Trump inaugural. I'm selecting Pecker. No one picked Junior yet, right? Nope. Well, put him on there. Junior!

I don't know how I keep skating. I don't get it. Even in the part one, volume one, I was like, part one. I don't get it. Even in the Mueller, like, part one, volume one, I was like, part one. I don't understand how they couldn't assign value to the dirt on Hillary and how he was too stupid to know he was criming.

I don't understand it. That's offensive to Hillary. Her emails are valuable. Right? They gotta be worth something. Apparently a ton. So, Jordan? I'm gonna go kushner in my fantasy land that's why it's called the fantasy indictment league

yeah uh i am going to select how about i got igor How about I got Igor That's a very cute way of saying it It is Igor Igor is adorable I'm gonna go with Keith Davidson Is that his name? You say Keith asfe as in?

Yeah, he's the guy who set up, we found out through those Cohen documents that it was actually a racket. Remember when I said, I conjectured, is that a word? That they were working in cahoots to screw these ladies over out of their hush money payments and then in those documents from the Cohen, it was

Pecker, I think, or Dylan Howard, one of the guys from AMI in the Enquirer, who was given that non-prosecution agreement in this deal, which they broke by blackmailing people, and they should be any day now indicted. But that Keith guy was the lawyer for Stormy Daniels and Karen

McDougal, and he introduced him to Cohen and said, hey, here's a business opportunity you two. And so I think him. Cool. Hell yeah. I would go with a rando. Rando.

Yeah. Amazing rando. I was also going to pick a rando with the caveat question. Since, as per Mueller and anyone that's paying attention at all, interference is still going on, if this investigation continues, at least in some respect, even though it's not technically under all, interference is still going on. If this investigation continues, at least in some respect, even though it's not technically under Mueller,

do we still get points? Rambo. All right. Cool. Absolutely. More Russians. I'll even make it more specific. Rando Russian.

Nice. Another Igor. Put me down for another Igor. I like the way you think Jordan I feel like Rando Russian is just Igor

at this point let's call him Igor's alright guys that's how we play the Fantasy Entitlement League thank you so much Muller she wrote

would like to thank Beta Brand for making the most amazing pair of pants ever we're on the road right now and we travel a lot and the Beta Brand

dress pant yoga pants are comfortable. They travel and pack brilliantly and they're professional looking so I can talk to former U.S. attorneys and FBI agents without wearing actual yoga pants but feeling like I am. Beta brand not only looks amazing but they're so comfortable. They're ultra ultra soft. They come in different styles like boot cut, straight leg, skinny and cropped. And while usually all my clothes are all black, they do come in all kinds of colors, including your standards like navy, gray, black, and khaki. And they also have seasonal and limited edition colors. And they release those monthly, and they're always selling out. They're fantastic.

These pants are made of super soft, breathable, four-way stretch knit fabric. They're tagless, which is important to me. They're wrinkle-resistant, and they have incredible details like real belt loops, pockets, front buttons, and faux zippers. We all know how we feel about pockets. I used to buy all my suiting from the standard places, and without fail, I would be sitting at work or in a meeting or talking to someone, and the pants would be pinging me, or they'd be uncomfortable.

They wouldn't be breathing. And that's why I replaced them all with Beta Brand Dress Pant Yoga Pants. And now I'm incredibly comfy and stretchy all day. I sit on my balance ball I use as an office chair and I can move and maintain comfortableness. And I absolutely love them. So I can't say enough amazing things about these pants. So head to betabrand.com slash ag, all lowercase b-e-t-a-b-r-a-n-d.com slash ag, all lowercase to get 20% off yours today. That's Betabrand.com slash A-G for 20% off the most comfortable pants you'll ever own. And now it's time for our interview and discussion on impeachment and optics of the Mueller testimony.

Please welcome former U.S. attorney, host of the On Topic podcast, Renato Mariotti. I just want you guys to know all of our interviews pick their own walk-up music, so there you go. They don't pick their chairs, though. That was, I fought the law. No kidding. I fought no kidding. I fought the law and the law won.

Asha Rangappa did Somebody's Watching Me. Richard Painter had Policy of Truth. Appropriate. He was so great. Justin Page. Love that guy. Anyway, hello, Renato. How are you?

How's it going? I'm doing well. I have to say, it looks like I may have picked up a new client today, so that's a good thing for listening. And I admire your pick in Fantasy Indictment. Keith Davidson. That's a good one. Yeah, thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I feel like his time is coming. Him and that Dylan Howard fella. Maybe a bar action before an indictment, though. We'll see. Yeah, and I'm waiting for Matt Gaetz to be disbarred for his Cohen tweet.

And he's being investigated in the House Ethics Committee. They must be real busy these days. The poor House Ethics Committee, just hair on fire every day. So this is an extraordinary week, Renato, with the testimony of Robert Mueller, now the court filing from the House Judiciary, asking for the Mueller grand jury materials under the federal criminal rule 6e exception one that states the court may disclose grand jury materials preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding. So can you explain, first of all, the

grand jury secrecy rules and exceptions? Like why is it so important that we have grand jury secrecy rules and what are these, why is it important that we have these exceptions? Great. Okay, so I think everyone here probably knows what a grand jury is. In the Constitution, there has to be a group of people that are called a grand jury, a bunch of random citizens who are selected who? Return an indictment. It's a formalism sometimes, but it is part of our Constitution We keep grand jury proceeding secret that means testimony when there's a witness the transcript secret not only that but documents that are obtained via a subpoena, so if

Not only that, but documents that are obtained via a subpoena. So if Robert Mueller subpoenas bank records using a grand jury subpoena, those records are covered by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6E. Or tax returns? Tax returns, actually, are covered by separate rules. Damn! We'll get them from Mazars. We'll get them from Mazars. All right.

Sweet, like I'm there. But actually, it's those... We'll get them from Mazars. We'll get them from Mazars. All right, so... Sweet, like I'm there. But if you actually... It's a good point. If you do subpoena them from an accountant, then they're covered by Rule 6A. So good catch. So in any event... Totally an accident, but thanks.

The idea is, the idea is, in part, that you want to protect innocent third parties. For example, right, you could imagine in the course of an investigation, you're subpoenaing records from all sorts of people that might contain information about them, that might contain information about the personal activities even of the people you're investigating.

So Mr. Kushner, I know you took him in your league, but he was investigated, he hasn't been charged, and let's say his financial records or other things shouldn't be necessarily released simply because he was investigated. But this exception that they're requesting all these documents under Congress would get those documents. Correct. So just to be clear, Rule 60 is just a rule. It's a federal rule of criminal procedure. It's something that courts do follow and attorneys do follow. And there are penalties for not

following 60. It used to be something I had to focus a lot on when I was a federal prosecutor. But the Constitution gives the House the power of impeachment, the sole power of impeachment. The Constitution gives the House the power of impeachment, the sole power of impeachment. And so I will just say personally, I think that regardless of an exception, that eventually if this got up to the Supreme Court, it's very hard for me to see how a rule could be used to block the results of a criminal investigation of the President from going to the House Judiciary Committee. But, thank you. But separate and apart from that, particularly when you're dealing with a trial-level judge,

a district judge, they're going to be looking at precedent. And what was filed yesterday, and I spent quite a bit of time looking through that, the document that was filed by the House Judiciary Committee, essentially what they're saying is this fits into that exception because it is in connection with a judicial proceeding which impeachment is under existing court precedent. Yes, and despite Nadler invoking the word impeachment in his filing, because he didn't say we're impeaching him. He said we need these documents to determine if we're going to exercise our Article I powers of impeachment.

JOHN MCWHORTER- Right. It's actually a very clever move that I want everyone to understand, because it's tricky. And I think a lot of people have been watching folks on TV try to explain it. I watched a little bit of TV news yesterday, and they were asking, I think, a Democrat, well, are you being cute? Are you trying to have it both ways? And actually, it's like, you know, they were asking, I think, a Democrat, well, is this, are you being cute?

Is that, are you trying to have it both ways? And actually, it's a fairly clever move, right? For weeks, months, we've been counting how many members of Congress support opening an impeachment inquiry, right? We've heard that for months now, right? And it was an issue, I think, for Democrats because it was splitting their caucus. Some people wanted it, some against. They didn't want to appear disunified. What Nadler did is he essentially said, actually, if you look at

the history of impeachment, we haven't always gone through the formal step and done the votes and done it that way. And what we're doing now is figuring out whether we want to impeach. So we're investigating whether to engage in impeachment and so we essentially sidestepped the whole issue of the vote and the potential divisiveness of that and said yeah we are citing our impeachment power we need to get the evidence so we can figure out whether we want to impeach yep yes thank you for clarifying that because it is sort of a question people people will like people like me want to be able to pop a bottle of champagne and say we're Yes, thank you for clarifying that, because it is sort of a question. People like me want to be able to pop a bottle of champagne and say,

we're a page in heaven! So I do that eclectic version of a dance inside, to quote the birdcage. But there's this recent McKeever decision everybody's all about, which I think doesn't really apply here, because that was about inherent powers to hand them over regardless of the rules I think or the exceptions but I think that even with these investigations committees of that committee investigations even if they're not actual impeachment hearings yet or they didn't have the house vote resolution to make it an impeachment some people think that's what's considered to make you making something an official impeachment

inquiry. Even though they don't have that, I feel like it still meets the 6E exception because it's preliminarily to a judicial proceeding. And I feel like they'll get these documents. But you had brought up an excellent point when I saw you on TV last night and today talking about what happens if the court decides that it doesn't fall under the Rule 60 exceptions, and what do we do then?

So, I agree with you, by the way, and I think Nadler, in the filing, does a very good job of explaining how this is in connection with a judicial proceeding. So I think they probably will get it, but let's say they don't. Let's say the court comes back and says, you need to formally open an impeachment inquiry. Then I think it's a great, it's great for Nadler, right? Because now Nadler can wave that sheet of paper to Nancy

Pelosi and give everyone an excuse to vote. And the vote is, we need to do this because the court told us that we have to do it to get the documents. trump forced us to do it and i think that's likely the uh alternative and it gives nancy the out and it gives the out to the the purple uh district democrats who are otherwise feeling a little freaky about using the i word i think it gives the court said we had to you know and they can go back to their constituents and i think it keeps everybody happy and it is particularly clever and ingenious and it gives me like a justice boner so I'm really

excited about the way that he's handling this How long would that process take you think? You know so I know a little bit about the estimates that internally some of the members and staff have. And what I heard was that, I mean, they're hoping they're also going to file something to get McGahn's testimony.

That's the next plan. And they think that their hope is that they'll be able to do that shortly after their recess, which is September. Yeah, because the courts do this in an expedited fashion in these particular kinds of cases. Is that correct? That's right. Now, I will say that's their hope it's judge beryl howell that is being petitioned for this for these is that is it her court okay now i don't remember so okay you're asking me something i don't know which is i'm sorry about that but i will say that that's their hope it's not necessarily

what will happen i want to give it one thing i just want to say to everybody is there's a lot of folks out there and I see it on Twitter all the time and occasionally I see it on television who are like, oh, the Democrats aren't doing anything and, you know, screw them and they're not really trying hard. I really think what Nadler, Nadler really wants to impeach. And I think he's trying to figure out how to set himself up to do that legally in a way that makes sense. And that's what they've done here.

So you have a little bit of patience if the court takes a little longer than that. Justice takes a minute. It's interesting how they passed that thing that allowed them to be able to go directly to the courts essentially and then the potential of the courts just pushing it back and making them have an actual full vote on it, right? It's like a tit-for-tat sort of thing throughout this all, which unfortunately equates to more time, right, like you were saying, but the solid foundation of it is what's most important, I think.

I think, right, it's also for Democrats. I mean, just speaking to members about this, I mean, what I have been hearing from certain members of Congress is that there are, there's a block of votes in Congress that does not want to vote for impeachment, period, because they were voted in red districts or purple districts, or they just think that they don't want to touch this. And Nancy Pelosi has to figure out how to keep everyone unified. And so anything that can kind of skirt past those issues and get them where they need to go you know in terms of getting down the road that's that's helpful for them politically i'm not a political expert so i don't know whether that's good or bad but certainly that is what

to help you understand that's what's driving some of this so all right so yeah that makes a little more sense then because if there's a contingent of Democrats who don't want to vote for impeachment and it could be very difficult for them politically and we do need them to stay in the House, we do need them to be reelected. I can see where that can, you know, create problems for them and for their constituents. I'm hoping that everybody when they go home on recess, are they staying or are they going? I don't know. I think people go home. I mean, they're running for re-election all the time. So I'm hoping that they

are just bombarded with people protesting outside of their offices calling for impeachment, but we'll see. I mean, again, some of these are really red districts that Trump won by quite a bit. And gerrymandering means that the House majority relies a lot on districts like that. Yep. That's why we have to vote so big.

We have to vote a certain percentage more than they do. Yep. Numbers too big to manipulate. And fortunately, we're better at it. So we'll do that. Now I wanted to talk to you a little bit because you and i were having this conversation before we got up here uh when we're hanging out up there about how upset we were by some of the media reaction to muller's testimony so and you were you guys pissed about that because it was it was kind of, frankly, disgusting to hear what some of the –

and folks that we love, Batto and Priest and people on MSNBC and CNN. This wasn't Fox News. It was all over. And talk a little bit – you just put out a piece. You just wrote an op-ed. I want you to talk a little bit about that. Thanks. Yeah, I wrote a column in Politico.

I have a column there that I write pretty regularly, and it was called, Actually, Robert Mueller Was Awesome. And some of you read it, I think, right? Got a huge reaction. I will say, I watched the hearings from beginning to end. I was watching them on C-SPAN because I was at work in kind of a window. And then I rushed because I had to record podcasts and be on radio and do other things. And I was shocked when I came back to see clips of people bashing Robert Mueller. I was shocked to read in the New York Times and Washington Post and elsewhere. I quoted in the first page of my or the first paragraph of column, just attacking the man and savaging him for his performance. So I'll just tell you what I saw,

and I want to, before I do that, let me just give you a perspective on it that I have that maybe you don't. I was a federal prosecutor for almost a decade, and I handled cases that I thought were high profile. In other words, they were about 1,000th, 1,000th as high profile as what Robert Mueller did. You know, I would think, hey, wow, we've got, you know, we made Good Morning America one day. Or, you know, hey, there's, you know, eight journalists in the gallery. That's a big deal. It's nothing like what Robert Mueller had to go through. But in those cases, I knew that every word I said was going to be picked apart. And at times, they were. I had defense attorneys.

I remember one time I said that defendant had lied, and actually the defendant caused his subordinate to lie, and they made a big deal about it. That sort of fine distinction mattered, right? You saw what Robert Mueller, when he was up there, how much they were trying to pick apart his words, how they were trying to catch him in some sort of gotcha game, right? And in fact, when he said something to Ted Lieu that

could be taken two different ways, it started an uproar, right? He actually had a very carefully corrected later that afternoon. And so that man was up there. He had spent so much time. He told us he chose his words very carefully, and he had a seem above it all, right? He had spent so much time, he told us, he chose his words very carefully, and he had a seem above it all, right? He had a seem nonpartisan, not drawn into this, not part of the fray, and he was trying to be careful, thoughtful. He wanted to look at his report so he made sure he didn't misstate a single word in it. And they used that to suggest he couldn't read, he didn't know what was in the report.

It was total BS, and part of the reason they did that is you had a lot of people on television, frankly, didn't understand half of the moves that Robert Mueller was making, and they needed to have a quick reaction. And so when he's, for example, there were moments up there. There was a moment, for example, when he was asked, was Bill Barr's letter accurate? And he paused, and he looked, and he declined to answer. And that was because if he answered the truth, that it was technically accurate, it would have given everyone the impression that Bill

Barr was telling the truth, when in fact, the letter, while technically accurate, was highly misleading. And so he was doing moves like that all day long. And people on television were judging him based, frankly, on how quickly he reacted or how he looked on camera, which is not how history is going to be judging that man. That is such a good point because you have to figure, and I know Jordan, you were talking about this too when we were first watching the hearings. Like the 80 steps he takes in his head before he says something.

And I think people mistook that for a blank stare. Yeah, they think he's thinking about ice cream or something. No question. You know what I wrote? No, I'm thinking about ice cream. The analogy I use for everyone is running out the clock. If you ever watch a football game or a basketball game where they're running out the clock, that's what Robert Mueller was doing

because he just was playing to not lose. He didn't have anything to win there. He didn't even want to be there. He was playing to be very careful and not screw up and he accomplished that. Well, I think we're all in agreement. Mueller was awesome. The irony, yes.

The irony is that that takes an incredible amount of mental prowess and people are thinking that he's slow and old. It's just, yeah. Because we have a reality TV star for a president I think. I will tell you, it's also there's a little bias there because Donald Trump

often appears slow like he has some sort of dementia or isn't on top of the facts and he's not called out in the same way we've gotten used to it. I was on Dan Abrams radio show yesterday and he was not called out in the same way we've gotten used to it i was on dan abrams radio show yesterday and he was one of the people on tv um who was bashing muller and he brought me on because he read my column and we had it out on it and he's like look i what i covered muller six

years ago and he was so much sharper and i told him well i'm not i don't i didn't because i was in government i wasn't sitting there watching every hearing that Mueller had. But I will tell you, maybe like Michael Jordan is last year at the Bulls. You know, he was 35. He wasn't jumping as high as he used to. He wasn't the same guy he used to. But he was the best guy in the court and he won the championship. And that's what I saw. Robert Mueller was as somebody who was watching hours of him for the first time because I didn't sit there and watch all the testimony. I saw an extraordinarily intelligent lawyer who was playing a game that no one else there was playing. He did not want to spell out why he said this do not exonerate stuff. He did not want to spell out why he decided not to tell us what his conclusion was as charging Trump. And no one could get him to do it because they didn't understand how to ask the right questions

to force him into a corner. And he was able to skirt through that whole thing having a fairly nuanced thing that he said that no one ever really challenged him on. Yeah, and somebody actually brought up to me, if you think that Mueller, if anyone, if you see somebody on social media or somebody asks you or tells you that they think

Mueller didn't do a good job or it fell flat or it bombed or whatever, ask them to tell you any single one person who got one over on him. You can't think of one. And that's hard to pull off when you're testifying to Congress, I imagine. I've never done it myself. I wouldn't look forward to it. And if Robert Mueller makes sneakers, I would wear them. Yeah. fine to congress uh i i imagine i've never done it myself i wouldn't look forward to it and if robert muller makes sneakers i would wear them yeah well i imagine we talk about this i think it's in higher loyalty that he's saying to comey just if you have to go in front of congress it's

just like get in get out because he knows how hard it is to do it right it's like exhausting i imagine fucking seven hours of just deflecting like everything trying like you said that's that's in that's incredible yeah i think you compared it to nuclear fallout he's like you know what was it avoid yeah it's like radiation get out alive yeah when i was it's it's so hard i as you know i'm on cnn i used to be on other networks being being active for 5 10 15 minutes and constantly answering questions, knowing that everyone is looking at me, right? There's a million people looking at me.

That's not an easy thing to do. It seems easy. It's not. And when I prepare witnesses to testify, which I do all the time, what I have to teach them is how to keep their mind active all the time. We're not like that. I don't actively think every time I'm using a word here on this podcast. We don't do that when we're chatting with our friends.

To keep your mind active and focused for whatever, six or seven hours straight, you are absolutely right. It is very, very challenging to do, especially at that level when you're going up against all these people who want to use you. And just to be clear, Democrats wanted to use him, too, as a prop. They wanted him to repeat things that they could use as a soundbite in an ad or in a web video. And do you notice he never would repeat their words? There was one congresswoman who said, well, when you say here that there's something outside the criminal justice process that could be used to deal with the sitting president, were you referring to impeachment? Well, obviously he was, but he would not comment because he felt like if he did, that would be a web ad. And even so, even to go as far as when she, I think it was Val Demings, was like, well, impeachment is this, and this is one of our processes. Because he said processes. There's

processes, plural, outside of criminal investigation. And she said impeachment, and then she then asked him to list those processes, and he went, you just said one. Exactly right.

I'm not going to say impeachment, motherfuckers. He wasn't going to do it, and he didn't, and they couldn't make him, and yet we still get these criticisms. I don't understand it. I was really hoping he would, I'm not going to lie, but you make a great point from a prosecutor's perspective. That's the best way to go, but as a regular person, I was just like, yes, the soundbite.

People need it because their attention spans are so so short but I get it it's like that's like what got us into this mess though right it's like sound bite culture and people not thinking and listening so yeah you know people asked a lot who won who lost right that's what I was getting asked a lot by journalists and it's the wrong way to think about it I mean I wrote in my piece I thought Robert Mueller won and I think the reason he won is he was able to stay outside the political fray if he was seen as a tool of the Democrats he lost from the perspective of history and everything he was trying to accomplish and if he also seemed like he was going back and forth with Republicans that defend himself

that also would have diminished the man he seemed above their attacks and that's where he needed to be. Yeah. I agree. When I was watching that, I just thought, seeing both sides, how they just wanted, like you said, they just wanted sound bites. I just thought truth shouldn't be political. We shouldn't make, either side, they shouldn't make it political like just accept truth as truth You know the the one moment that one of the moments when he had moments where he was able to speak in a nonpartisan way He started talking more freely I mean when he talked about to go to your point when he was talking about for example

Why are the Russians attacking our elections going forward? He spoke at length about that. Absolutely, yeah. So I think you're right. I think it was just he didn't want to be partisan, not that he didn't want to say anything. Yeah, and there really shouldn't be anything partisan about Russians attacking our election.

I agree. Because you can look at the whole report, and you could even, to play devil's advocate, consider that the Trump campaign was just an unwitting unknowing attacked group of people and yeah uh and yeah if you make one i'll totally wear it uh what was I saying? It's a great idea though. Your point is that the attacks on our elections

shouldn't be a political issue. Oh, right. And so even if you assume, even if you say Trump's innocent and if you say he didn't do anything wrong, he was attacked on all sides by the Russians coming at him

and he didn't fall for it and he was a strong bulletproof hero or whatever the fuck, the Russians still attacked the election. You know what I mean? They still tried at every turn. He was totally in on it.

But they tried at every turn, and that should worry the shit out of everybody. And that is why I think he was so animated on Volume 1. He was really into it. I'm a Volume 2 person, but he was really... Somebody, was it really yeah somebody was it yeah he was kevin's back uh like you know how the sorting hat will put you into one of the four houses with some people are either volume one people or volume two people

i'm a it's from trump cast thank you i'm a volume two person but i'm also was a lawyer i'm a volume two person because that's where all the legal action is but i will just say but muller is a volume one person that's what people said that and i'm going to say you know what i why i what i saw was different and what i saw was he was free to talk on volume one because there's no political consequence that's a very good point on volume two he had to be very careful because he was all to be used. It's all politics. Correct. And he was guilty. Certainly Mueller thought so. I mean, here's the thing. No one reading the volume two of the report doesn't

believe that Mueller had the evidence to, you know, everyone knows that Mueller had the evidence to charge Trump. Every Republican who read it knew that too. He was able to get through the whole hearing without seeming like he was saying that. And so Republicans who watched it could just, they tried to say he was a doddering guy. was partly because they had some bs argument that his uh subordinates were really

driving the ship or something like that that i saw newt gingrich others it was a shameful argument but um they weren't able to say that he came out and said you know impeach trump or anything like that right and volume one is decided right? He said we did not have sufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy, even though here's 100 and 200 pages of collusion, but that's not a term of art in law or however he worded it. But Volume 1's decided, right?

And so it's easier to speak freely about, where Volume 2, it's not that baton has been passed to congress for not impeachment uh and so you know that's it's kind of undecided up in the air and highly political and i just found what you wanted to stay clear of that well also i guess and you know now i think about this is something i should have mentioned in my column too is you know he made very clear that the president could be indicted after leaving office, right? So, and when you're a criminal defendant.

Thank you, Ken Buck. Yeah, there you go. But when you're a criminal defendant, it made me happy. I wrote a column previously about how Trump could get indicted after leaving office. So I was happy to hear the comment, just because it showed that I was right, I think, about that. But I will say this. Well, I got a lot of heat. You have no idea how many nasty. Yeah, I think, about that. But I will say this. Well, I got a lot of heat.

You have no idea how many nasty emails I got on that. We were like, look, we were right. Yeah, but I would just say that if a criminal defendant could potentially use against as a defense in a criminal case, that the jury pool had been tainted by these untoward comments that are made by the prosecutor prejudging the case so he had to be very careful in volume two doesn't want to blow that future once trump is out of office prosecution because he could right potentially that his job is not to screw things up and that's what he did don't taint the jury. Taint is my favorite word. Can I ask a quick question? We've had this answered by multiple people, but I'd love to know definitively the tolling that would happen, right, on the statute of limitations.

What is – because Mueller was like, I don't know. What do you – right? That was one of the most interesting questions. And, in fact, I was going back and forth with Congressman Quigley and his staff about it afterwards. Was it Quigley that asked that one? Yeah. He's my congressman. A lot of people's congressmen here, right?

So, and great question. And here's what I would just say on that. Mueller gave two different answers at two different points. And they were both actually technically correct. So just so everyone knows what it is, maybe all of the people who listen to the podcast already know, but Toling's like pausing. So if there's a statute of limitations for five years after a crime,

what essentially the argument is is that since he can't be indicted while he's president, it would be paused during the presidency. Neal Katyal came on my podcast on topic many months ago and made that argument. The problem for Neal and anyone who wants to advocate that is that no court has ever considered that because it's never come up. So his first answer, Mueller's first answer is like, I don't know. And that's a good answer.

It would have been mine. And then there was some back and forth with Quigley. And then where Mueller ended up was, no, essentially that can't be right. And I also think that's correct. And here's what I mean by that. Most likely, if a court considers this, I think a court's going to come out no on tolling, although I respect Neil and he certainly knows a lot about constitutional law that i don't but i just i understand the logic of it but from the perspective of a potential criminal defendant if i represented trump for example which obviously i don't but if

i did i would argue in that future world you don't want to take that i'm not taking that case i already picked up one potential client today in the Mueller She Wrote podcast. Yeah, it was totally losing to the NFL when they sued. Yeah, pretty much. We're in trouble on the copyright suit. But in any event, if I represented Trump, what I'd say is, look, nowhere in writing does it say that this is getting told. No court has ever decided this in advance and so trump when he's considering his potential obstructive activity did not know or had no reason to know he put on notice that potentially this could he could get charged 10 years later or something and do you think the reason it wouldn't apply is because the olc opinion isn't foundational enough to be the basis of an argument for why that

wouldn't it's a great question i think what's driving it for me is even if it was let's just say that there's some statute out there that said you can't charge the president while in office. Then essentially there's still this like inference that you're reading. There's like some logic to it. Well, because you can't charge him in this time period, that must mean it's told. I think a court could come out that way and I could see the logic of that. And I think that it does go to the principle of no one being above the law. I just think there's a very big, if I was going to be a betting person on it, I would bet

that a court would be more cautious about it because a criminal defendant in the Constitution under due process is supposed to have notice of the crime and all sorts of whether their activity could be prosecuted. Yeah, nobody wants to be first.

And you've noticed that... Mueller had that in his volume one a couple times. of whether their activity could be prosecuted. Yeah, nobody wants to be first. Yeah. And you've noticed that... Mueller had that in his volume one a couple times, too, about how this hasn't been tested in the courts and because of this and that. Well, just to go to... I mean, you all mentioned the Donald Trump Jr. thing, for example, right?

The campaign finance thing. And that drives that. I mean, just so... To give some context to that for everybody, campaign finance cases are And that drives that. I mean, just so to give some context to that for everybody, cramping finance cases are rarely charged criminal. Yeah. And I think that's what he was talking about, too, is when he was talking about trying to put a value, place a value on oppo research from a foreign government. He cited cases that were kind of like it, but there's never been anything where he would so he wouldn't be able to establish value for this because it's never been established in the court, right?

Right. Well, there's a bigger problem with it. I mean, first of all, you can have value for things that are intangible. A famous case everyone in Chicago knows, the Rob Bogoyevich case, involves selling a Senate seat. And I was in the U.S. Attorney's Office at the time when we prosecuted that case. And the argument was that the Senate seat could be valued, even though it's sort of an ephemeral things like there's a market chair the chair has value everything there you go everything's got value but he sold the seat but could you a man but here there was never anything real that was being offered that we know about in other words we don't know what the head the lawyer Russian lawyer the Russian Crown Prose crown prosecutor was ever whatever it was, was offering.

We don't know what that is. And you can imagine a defense attorney for Trump Jr. being able to say they're literally saying he was trying to get a thing of value, but we don't even know what it is. It was all a ruse. And the Russian person would probably get up there and testify. It was all a ruse or some B.S. Ands and then you know then he potentially couldn't get a conviction so huge risk i think in bringing that prosecution yeah like if it were a craigslist poster it'd be pretty vague right hillary dirt no value yeah it's very strange just pick it up free yeah yeah name your price all right um i just have i have a lot of old weird craigslist stories that are so you don't know i'm going but trust me hey guys it's ag from muller she wrote and i'm here to tell

you not all heroes wear capes many of them wearubs, and we can all agree that our doctors and nurses, nurse practitioners and clinical professionals and PAs and PTAs, they're all just amazing people, and they dedicate their lives to helping others and to being of service to others. And what they wear should be more than just a uniform. Their scrubs should help them feel good and look good and function properly so they can perform at their best. And for years, medical professionals have been wearing the same scratchy, baggy scrubs should help them feel good and look good and function properly so they can perform at their best. And for years, medical professionals have been wearing the same scratchy, baggy scrubs like since the 50s with no innovative technical properties to protect and hold the life-saving tools that our providers need to take care of us.

And every set of FIGS scrubs is antimicrobial. They're incredibly soft, they're moisture-wicking, and they're made of four-way stretchy fabric. And here's the best part, you guys. This is the goodwill. This is the part that I love. Every time you shop at FIGS, they give scrubs to healthcare providers in need all around the world. And to date, they've donated thousands of sets of scrubs to providers in over 35 countries. FIGS makes a great gift for the lifesaver in your life. I think we pretty much all know somebody who works in the medical field. I personally got a one at one of their jackets and it's got the pen pocket on the arm so I can keep my pens right there within easy and fast reach and double pockets like side pockets and front pockets so that I can keep my notepad and all my instruments and everything that I'm trying to, you know, do at that particular time, like right near me. And it's, I absolutely love it. And it's breathable and it's so soft. They're

really, and it's good looking too. I actually was at the dog park and there was this woman, she was wearing, and I could tell they were figs scrubs. I was like, are those figs scrubs? She's like, oh my gosh, yes. These are my favorite scrubs. They are absolutely awesome. They keep the moisture away from me. They're antimicrobial. And she just couldn't say enough good things about them. So whether you're one of the awesome humans that works in health care or someone that wants to say thanks to those deserving folks, Figs is going to make that easy by providing you with 15% off your first purchase by using my code AG. So get ready to love your scrubs.

Head to wearfigs.com, W-E-A-R-F-I-G-S.com, and enter our code AG at checkout. You'll be glad you did. All right, so we have time right now to take about four or five questions from you guys. So if there are four or five of you who want to come up, line up at this microphone. Anybody want to come up and ask a question? And we are only going to have time. So once we get to a line of five people, we're going to have to don't

get in it. Anybody else? We got four. Everyone, put your hands together for Jason. For Jason. Hey, everybody. Ooh. Thanks, Jason. You're welcome. Hi. Hi.

So first thing I want to say is, as a non-binary listener, I want to thank you guys. Over the last year, you've been much better about, or excellent about trans and non-binary representation. So thank you for that. Thank you. And if we ever miss anything, feel free to let us know. So my question is, the OLC memo is a memo, and you guys were just talking about a lot of aspects of it, but if it were ever to take a legal challenge, what might that look like?

Great question. And here's how I think it would happen. It would happen if a state or local prosecutor decided to prosecute the President of the United States. So you're never going to get a federal prosecution unless that – Tish James. Tish James. Tish James. That's possible. The other possibility is let's just say a Democrat was elected

and their administration decided to change that memo. Now, of course, that's a memo that also in the Clinton administration Democrats also had. But there you could imagine – It's a nice memo to have around if you're the president. Yeah. also had but there you could imagine memo to have around if you're the president yeah in that circumstance you could if if a if a doj if the doj was going to prosecute the democratic president the next administration then that would be the other way it would come up thank you thank you for your question hi hi there what's up akron thank you thank you hello hello so sympathy coming your way thank you thank you so much um so we're out here. We mobilize. We knock on doors. We get a Democratic president. How do we impeach a Supreme Court justice?

Wow. So the process is exactly the same. Or five. The process is exactly the same as impeaching a president. In fact, and judges have been impeached during all of our lifetimes. I mean, there was some pretty egregious misconduct where judges have been removed. It's just very hard to do, right, because as we've discovered, 67 votes is not an easy thing to get in this day and age, so that's the issue. Can I have a little follow-up question? Yes, you may. So recently in the Supreme Court, what rulings do you think have the biggest impact on us today Wow that's awesome I will tell you in my opinion a decision that we aren't talking about enough is the gerrymandering political

gerrymandering decision that mayor it's a nightmare it It's a nightmare. It's skewing our democracy and turning it into something other than a true representative democracy. And I would also just say that the root cause of the campaign finance problems we have, and I'm talking about structural things because that to me drives all the other stuff, money and politics and skewing our democracy. But there's something called Buckley versus Vallejo from the 70s, but that says that essentially you can spend an unlimited amount of money on a president, on your own race. And all the rest of this flows from that, because Citizens United was essentially an outside group spending an unlimited amount of money to influence a race. And as long as that holds true in this country and that is the law of the land,

you're never going to be able to really get money out of elections. And that was Buckley versus who? Vallejo. V-A-L-E-O. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. You guys have the best questions.

Hi. I was mulling two separate quick questions but the important one um how hopeful are you now with um protests breaking out in moscow i think the opposition leader is navalny how hopeful are you that despite the oppression of them and the violence that like the people in russia might actually be able to topple putin like how likely is that i don't know man they are so steeped in corruption and ballot box stuffing. What did he win by?

Like 90% or something like that? There's no way he got that. It just seems so corrupt. I honestly don't know. I'm so sad for the people of Russia. I'm afraid to say what it would take on the mic because I'm afraid of what he would do. It takes some crazy shit.

But yeah, being in the streets, just like Puerto Rico, I believe in that process, but he is the most corrupt of all of them. But it seems like the Russian people have more balls than us, just to be honest. They're up against a lot more. Sorry, Joy, go ahead. No, it's okay. I also heard during the reporting of what's been going on recently, they're framing it a lot more sorry joy no it's okay um i i also heard during the reporting of

what's been going on recently they're they're framing it essentially as like this is just kind of something that their people do every once in a while essentially because he's been empowered forever right so like balls of resistance will come up and then whether or not it's it's waiting them out or arresting all of them or something this isn't the first time that this has happened so unfortunately I think it's it's just like another iteration of a cycle of the only resistance their people can conceivably participate in and I don't I don't know enough I have I have a couple friends that grew up in Russia and honestly they're such like diehard Putin fans and it makes no sense to me because they're very liberal in the states so I don't know like what kind of nationalism is embedded into just the households in Russia that prevents something

actually huge from occurring I I have no idea is my answer I guess I think all these pockets of of protests that we're seeing is so I don't't know, I feel maybe I'm just, before I wasn't very politically aware, but now I'm reading more and stuff. And in Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, Russia, here, the people are rising, and I love that, to see that. And I think even if they are downplaying it, it's happening. And they can't they can't erase that and it seems all in response to this alt-right fascism uh tyranny this that

this death rattle of nationalism I think that's that's happening uh in the world I compare it to my menopause shit's just out of control everything's weird and uh and i'm protesting so no but you know i i am i am where i i don't i honestly don't know but i think it's it would take like puerto rico level um protests and something like that i mean that was pretty much the entire island was just out there yeah But they don't have the coordination of government or the level of resources that Russia does, so it's entirely different, which is what fucking sucks.

What was your follow-up question? Okay, really quickly. What is your Super Space Fiends take on what Nalder said regarding there might have something crimes outside of the Four Corners of the four corners of the report maybe with a grand jury material what do you think it might be extra dirt or criming that he did that they could uncover now was he specifically referring to trump when he said that i think he

was uh yeah i mean i think that i would just say that partly that is to justify why they need the grand jury materials to the court rather than I think him necessarily having something in mind because he doesn't know exactly what's in the materials. Or to justify the fact that they're not only going for impeachment, maybe. I think that what he's trying to say, because a lot of the answer

that a lot of people are throwing back at him and I think there'll be some argument about this in court is you already have the report. What more do you need? And they ask for, just so everyone knows what they're asking for they ask for the underlying interview notes and transcripts and documents that are obtained via grand jury subpoena and yeah I think part of his answer is we may uncover more there that isn't in the report I will just tell you don't get because I want to make sure everyone's we're all being honest with ourselves here don't get your hopes up for that i don't think robert muller was sitting on all

sorts of other stuff but i think it's a smart argument unless it's the finances the red line stuff he didn't look into or yeah one thing i will just say i don't know if everyone picked up on this is i think it was actually raja kristamurthy who asked him about whether or not he was investigating money laundering by Trump's businesses, and Mueller said no. And then I think he asked if he ever asked to expand his authority, and Mueller refused to answer that question. Interesting. We should have like a fantasy scandal, though. Like which one would you wish it could be? Because I'm thinking of the apprentice tapes, like the N-roll.

That's what we call the N-word tapes, yeah. Like basically, yeah, just what would be the craziest thing to come up? Like, I don't know what would, you know, take them down, but everyone thinks the pee-pee tape is out there. But is that criminal? Maybe, depending on who's in it. It's true, yeah. But, okay.

That's just a follow-up question that I gave to you. I'm sorry. Okay. Another note. So A, I want to thank you guys for the incredible combination of justice and kindness that you bring to us. It's really a salve in these times.

And I have a question which is kind of justice-porn-y. What would you have asked Robert Mueller? Wow. Alright, this is, we'll see you. Well, if you want to get really nerdy about it, here's, I guess

if I had ten minutes or five minutes to question Robert Mueller, I would have asked a series of questions to pin down why he thought that he could not conclude that Trump committed, or conclude that a, that sitting president committed a crime, and why he chose this wonky language, essentially, instead of just saying, you could imagine him just saying, well, the fact that I'm not drawing a conclusion doesn't mean he's innocent, or doesn't mean anything one way or the

other whether he's innocent or guilty he does this whole like it just it does not exonerate him but if I could exonerate him I would stay right it's very bizarre right and then I think he goes off on to talk about how the reason is because of it because he can't indict him, he doesn't have a way to defend himself against an accusation of committing a crime in a court of law. And so that was his decision. That wasn't in the memo. Is that right? Yeah, it was Robert Mueller's.

Exactly. That was Robert Mueller's unprecedented way of dealing with this. That was his way of bending over backwards to be fair to Trump because he was somebody accused of a could be if he had concluded that accused of a crime without a way of going to court as you said AG but first of all could it also be not to taint a

potential future taint jury? I think it's more that he really thought that he wanted to be as fair as possible and I also thought he was trying to have a bipartisan way of – or a nonpartisan way of handling that tricky situation. But I think, first of all, the American people deserve to have that all splayed out. But I also think there are some choices and nuances that are there that he chose, and it's not clear to me why he chose to go one direction versus another,

and I would be interested in finding those out. chose to go one direction versus another. And I would be interested in finding those out. And I think the problem was the Republicans knew that ultimately if you got more detail there, it might be bad for Trump. So they did this BS about exoneration, but it really – they were very light about it. And then when he said, well, this is a special case of a president, they immediately cut him off, reclaimed their time, whatever. And the Democrats didn't want to go anywhere near that

because their job was to sort of run through the report or whatever. Right. That's why, I'm sorry, can I answer? I just think with all that in mind, my question would be, as a private citizen, knowing all he knows, would he recommend impeachment? Would he want impeachment to happen as an American citizen? Because then maybe he'd just cut through all that and be like hell yes

like of course but he can't say that in his formal position right I take the question yeah right I wonder what he tells his wife at night you know like it's just interesting I take the question that was pretty badass thank you it appears she's asking if SDNY is done if you can done? The whole, the investigation? It appears.

She's asking if SDNY is done, if you can't hear her. That appears to be done. And I noted it's unusual that it seems like it dropped off when Barr came in. And we won't know. We may not know for some time. We had Asha Rangappa up on the stage of Philly. And I was like, what's up with that? Like, isn't it weird that Barr came in and then all of a sudden the thing thing and she goes, yeah, and the FBI, we call that a clue.

She's funny. Hi. I don't have a question. I just want Jaleesa to come over here with her hat because I have something to put in it. Oh. Whoa. Say no more. Yes, yes, yes. Go, go, go.

Renato, look away. If Chalisa needs a lawyer, I'm available. Thank you. needs a lawyer, I'm available. Thank you. Thank you. I'm very excited. Alright, so now it's time for my favorite part of the show. I need right about here, three people in. No, two people in.

You guys. So two, two, two, two, and all you guys over here. You're one group. And then we'll do the four, you guys, the four in the middle here, okay? And then the two on the end here and all you guys, okay? So now group one, your note is fucked. Let's hear it. Fucked, fucked, fucked, fucked, fucked, fucked, fucked, fucked, fucked.

Sounds good. All right, you guys ready? Can we get the balcony for the fucked? Oh. Yes. That is a brilliant idea, Julissa. So I'm going to give you that. You do the fucked like that. At the end.

A nice, quick mm. Yeah. All right. Fucked end. A nice quick mm. Mm, yeah. All right. Fucked. Let's hear it once. Fucked. Yes. Oh, that's beautiful.

Now, who do you want to do? Who do you want to do it to? You want Epstein? Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah, I don't care how he pronounces it.

Fuck it. It's Epstein in German. It is technically Mueller in German, too, but hey, whatever. Bob. Let's call him Bob. All right, you guys ready? Yes. All right.

I think Jeffrey Epstein is... Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck. Yes. You guys, that was so brilliant. I have been your host, A.G. I've been Jaleesa Johnson. I've been Jordan Coburn. Thank you, Sarah Hirshberg of Lencia. Thank you, your host, AG. I've been Jaleesa Johnson. I've been Jordan Coburn. Thank you, Sarah Hirshberg of Valencia.

Thank you, Renato Mariotti. This is Muller She Wrote. Muller She Wrote is produced and engineered by AG with editing and logo design by Jaleesa Johnson. Thank you. Our web design and branding are by Joelle Reeder with Moxie Design Studios, and our website is MullersSheWrote.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 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 Pippen, and you're listening to The Dan Dunn Show. And, wait, hold on. The name of the show is what? All right, sure. Scottie Pippen 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. 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 Teese, and you're listening to What We're Drinking with Dan Dunn. Let me try one more time. Come on. Is that right? What we're drinking? It's amazing. Is it right? Ah, that's better. So be like Dita Von Teese, friends, and listen to What We're Drinking with Dan Dunn, available wherever you get your podcasts.