Jack - Skeevy Chodes (feat. Maya Wiley)

Episode Date: December 16, 2019

Today on Mueller, She Wrote have a lot of news including an impeachment update, new investigations into the NRA, the Ukranian natural gas company linked to Rudy Giuliani and much more. We also have an interview with NBC news analyst and civil rights activist Maya Wiley. Support our show at patreon.com/muellershewrote!

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

Who can stop? They might be giants and their liberal rocket gender. Who? No one. Disadvantaged pay for where somebody else is money. Thanks to Third Love for supporting Mueller She Wrote. Third Love knows there's a perfect breath for everyone, so right now they're offering you 15% off your first order.

Go to ThirdLove.com slash AG to find yours today. Thanks to NUM for supporting Mueller She Wrote. Sticking to a weight loss plan can be hard. NUM is designed for results. It's out with the old habits in with the new Sign Up for your trial today at NUMNOOM.com-AG. And thanks to Skillshare for supporting Mollershi Road. 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. And thanks to Best Fiends for supporting Mollershi Road. Best Fiends is a unique and exciting puzzle experience unlike any other puzzle games out there. Best Fiends updates the game monthly with new levels and events so it never gets old. Download free on the Apple app store or google play i am stout working from the democrat coalition

you're listening to mola she broke so to be clear mr trump has no financial relationships with any russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what I said. That's obviously what the opposition is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time of truth

in that campaign, and I didn't have, and I have communications at the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin for having nothing to do with Putin? I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about a mother than he will respect me. Russia, if you're listening,

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

I'm doing a little something different today. They don't know what's up. You're on your toes. Oh. Your rest, did you say? Yeah. Oh good. That's a good feeling. Yes, it is. Yes. I got a lot of sleep yesterday Okay, I'm gonna be good. I've been sleeping on our new helix mattress. Oh, which are you know not not to not to you know Give free add time. Yeah, not to free time But they are whenever advertisers and holy shit their mattresses are so comfortable Isn't it the best sleeping on a cloud? I know I have the same one. It's the best Yeah, and I can actually TMI here but if you are a lady with wide hips or you know big boobs or whatever and you really struggle to sleep on hard mattresses this is a dream.

Yes. So good. Anyway there you go. You're welcome Felix. I'm just so happy. Billum. Yeah. We have a great show for you today. Maya Wiley is joining us later for the interview. She hasn't been on our show yet. So I'm really, I was really excited to speak with her. We'll be discussing impeachment. We're hard at work getting the studio ready for video and you can access that by becoming a patron at any level by heading to patreon.com slash muller she wrote.

Your contributions go towards paying high wages and offering healthcare. And now we're gonna add 401ks to our small, mighty staff. And I hadn't told you guys that yet. No, it's a surprise. It's a pretty sick. And it's a two-fer, because your contribution makes you a patron of both Mueller She Wrote and our Daily News podcast, The Daily Beans.

Follow at DailyBeansPod on Twitter and we'll be picking a random winner to have dinner with myself and the Starburns Audio Network's CEO, Jason. We'll fly to you. He's fancy. and we'll be picking a random winner to have dinner with myself and the Starburns audio network CEO Jason We'll fly to you. He's fancy We've been getting a lot of compliments on the newsletter. We've redesigned it patrons You get that every Friday now. It includes links to every article we read during the week my research notes Infographics and the latest information on on both of the podcasts. So again, that's for patrons. They're in newsletter So well done. Hey, and we have a lot of news to get to today, including an impeachment update, new investigations into the NRA,

the Ukrainian natural gas company linked to Rudy could have been bribed, and Mitch McConnell's Kentucky aluminum plant, we have eight new legal opinions from Barr designed to protect Trump, the Supreme Court decision and three Trump tax cases, and some questions about Nunes. And we'll get to all of that plus the fantasy indictment league. But first, it is time to start with my favorite segment, Corrections. It's time to stay. It's time for me to say I'm sorry. Oh, I made a mistake.

Okay, so let's see. We had a bunch. Did you get any of the koala bear ones? Yes. We got so many but I didn't include any of them. Okay. Because I know they're not bears. Correct.

Yeah. We probably got four or five corrections being like koalas are not bears, thermosuit beels. So we are aware I just didn't include any of those because they're not political. We just, San Diego Zoo when I was a kid, they were Kuala Bears. Kangers are kind of just like skinny bears. Go. They're still very bear-like. Have you seen a video of a muscular Kuala?

Yes. Not Kuala, sorry, Kangaroo. Yeah, yeah, I one night when I was... The buff broke, Rue? Yeah, he's like, yeah. Yeah, fucking terrifying. I fell into a K-hole of watching Kangaroo videos oh yeah fucking terrifying. I fell into like a K-hole of watching Kangaroo videos on YouTube one night, I don't know why.

K-hole, Kangaroo, huh? Yeah exactly and I and they're fucking terrifying. They taste after you. They're terrifying. Yeah, yeah. Fuck you up. Anyway. Yeah. PR. Totally. They're big.

They're also more soupyels, right? Yes, I'm pretty cool. Yes, much like Kool-A-Las. Yes, much like. Much like. Yeah. But we did know that, so thank right? Yes, I'm pretty cool. Yes, much like two alas. Yes, much like. Much like. Yeah. But we did know that, so thank you. Yeah, I didn't.

From the bear cat is also not a bear. I'm just bringing that up to let you know the born and been wrong. It's also known as, although I did see two kids discussing the bear cat, and one said to the other at the zoo, oh, we'll see what happened. It was a bear made it with a cat. And which led me to go around and just say

completely incorrect things in front of animal exhibits. Like we stood in front of the giraffes and say these are young elephants, you can tell by their necks, you know. Just be sure to have her promise that we can say. Fun fact also, the koala is my favorite animal. Always has been my entire life. I actually like had, which is funny for a girl coming from a cold part of Canada that a koalaala is my favorite animal. Always has been. My entire life, I actually, like, had, which is funny for a girl coming from a cold part

of Canada that a Koala would be my favorite animal. But I just was obsessed with them. And my mom took me on a trip when I was a teenager to the Toronto Zoo, so she could take me to a special exhibit with the Koala's who were actually visiting from the San Diego Zoo to the Toronto Zoo. My mom took me there one summer,

so I could meet Koala's for the first time. So I'm pretty devastated this news But yeah, yeah, so my like my I was stuffy in my like box of baby things. That's a koala. I do too. Yeah, yeah Nice and let's see so let's start here from Tanya backster I love the show on the subject of climate change A. G. recently said we America are the only country that has a party that thinks climate change is not real Well, I'm ashamed to let you know that we in Australia also have deniers in our parliament. And indeed, a government that doesn't give a fuck about the climate. This is particularly grading

right now, as we currently have an enormous number of out of control bushfires burning the country down. So that's terrifying. From Lindely Henrickson, the resignation of Canadian leader of the opposition fact, Andrew Shear did not misappropriate funds for private schooling for his children. The conservative party provided the funds as part of an agreement that was made with Shear. He did nothing illegal. The reason he stepped down, not the reason he stepped down. In fact, he lost the election and the confidence of his party and was pressured to step down now.

Well, in advance of the next election, he's still a member of parliament from John. Okay. So there's a question of why would he be punished in that way, but not the full extent of not being a member of parliament anymore? Yeah. So that's still out there. And then from John, I don't necessarily like Tulsi Gabbard, but in my opinion, she is not a Republican, and I think you really should reconsider referring to her as such.

She supports Medicare for all, marijuana legalization, gun control, free college. Yes, she sucks with most everything else, but calling her Republican is Trumpian. Like when Trump calls Komi and Mueller and everyone else Democrats, just another way of saying the others, being an asshole doesn't automatically make you Republican, we have them on the left as well. Good point. Yeah. Have we called her a Republican? Not probably.

Oh, okay. Well, I don't agree with that. Yeah. I guess she should have voice that she's not a Republican. Yeah. She could switch parties to independent or libertarian, but she does her core values are that of a Democrat. I would, I would say. Yeah. So thank you for that. Um, he also says, I'm here for the duration. Let's win this fucker in 2020. Go, John, uh, from Johan or Joe, uh, here for the duration. Let's win this fucker in 2020. Go John. From Johann or Johann, head back.

Oh, my bad. Oh, this is, that was John. Yeah, that was my bad. Was it John? That was John. Oh, good. Wow, that's what a coincidence, because I was reading. Now we're good.

Now we're good. Well, this is Johann, the next one. Right, right, perfect. Okay, let's go, Johann. Here we go. He says, this is referring to Goibles. The quote you had in daily beans last week. It seems you never said that specifically, but actually accused Germany's enemies of doing it.

So there's that. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And those are our political corrections this week. Easy. Yeah. And so we had four political corrections and then multiple co-all of their corrections. Yes. And we had a few other corrections about, you know, various small details about how we worded things, or pronounce things, or whatever. And those are great. And we are going to do special episodes for patrons

coming up in the near where we include like additional corrections, fun ones, non-political ones. But we're gonna try to keep it focused on politics on the show. Yep. Cool. Sounds good for here. Yeah.

All right. Well, with corrections out of the way, let's hit the news with just the facts. All right, a little bit of an impeachment update. We go into impeachment in more detail in the daily beans, which will come out Monday morning to the public and Sunday night to patrons. So first of all, we had this week, we know we had the hearings and then they did the markup on the articles, right? So they did that one hearing and then they did like, they started at 7 p.m. and then did them all day the next day.

And at the end, there was a bit of a surprise because everyone thought for sure that they were going to vote on the articles after the debates were done. But it was about 11, it was after 11 p.m. and so Nadler made the decision. I don't know when he made it, but he but we all first heard it when he announced it He gabbled out. He adjourned and said that they were gonna vote in the morning and Doug Collins had exploded That's mine is not on one. I may not hear them make no mark, man, go did, boom, man, just a fire, they, and they don't, that gum, that gum, that gum, that gum, Brow, everywhere, man, I don't know, so,

no man, we're running out there, I don't know, see, check, man, you don't, come down here, Sir, you are going to have to speak more slowly, I cannot understand you. Dang, oh, make no mark, that gum, that gum, all done it, boom. I just kidding, that's Boom Hauer, here's the actual clip.

Getting it up with one side and the other doing our final comments like we did. And then to do that right there shows that Chairman Nallar's integrity is zero. His staff is zero. They have nothing that they can offer anymore except the Kangaroo Corps that we've seen for the last three days. The John Roberts Thamp that you've just seen in this committee has made this committee irrelevant. This chairman has made himself irrelevant. That was the most bushly play I've seen in my life. Because they want to simply get it back on the cameras because it's after 11 o'clock tonight

and they don't think enough people is watching. I have never seen anybody want to get in front of these cameras more than this group right here. Because they don't have anything to repeat this president. They don't have anything that they can move on except who? Bush leaks up like this. Anybody in America, this she's showed the American people why this right here is wrong. This right now, why this president has been attacked for three years and tonight is showed a complaint.

Okay, so that was Doug Collins calmly responding to being mad that he had to come to work on a Friday pretty much. It must distinguish response from the ranking member. And of course headlines and newspapers everywhere the next morning had the photo that's gonna become famous of now they're sitting there and Collins like, errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Not that I'm shaming the wrong number of periods. You know what I mean. Right, right, right. Yes, yeah, but yeah, he's insane. Yeah, and there were a lot of insane things that happened during those hearings. I love the debate style better. Gomer wouldn't stop talking about the steel dossier and he kept saying, it's why we're

here right now because of the phony dossier, but that's not why we're here in peaching Trump. It's got nothing to do with it, but we did learn something new about Christopher Steel last week when the IG report came out and Jordan You have that story. Yeah, so this is interesting. Horowitz's team uncovered and included information about previous contacts that steelhead with One of the members of the Trump family over the years who we now know to be Ivanka, Ivanka Trump. So the two met back in 2007, apparently at a dinner and what they were doing is just discussing the possibilities of them working together and the capacity of him being an intelligence master, whatever. They thought he was good then.

I thought he was good enough to work with him then. And then they, I guess, met again the next year in 2008, presumably to continue that same conversation. That's right, because I wanted to hire him. And sources that are familiar with the meetings said, Ivanka and Steel were discussing what Steel's intelligence firm, orbus business intelligence could provide to the Trump organization directly as it geared up to expand its real estate arm into foreign markets. So they were having multiple conversations

about hiring him to, yeah, I guess, just help them move into these different markets, I'm just re-wording the same sentence I just said, but with confidence, I guess, in the intelligence aspect of it. So nothing actually went through though, they didn't really, it doesn't, at least not from what I've read so far. Yeah. Yeah. No deals were like formalized between them, but it does, it is a glaring

indication that them trying to discredit him. Yeah. Either means they were incredibly short-sighted when they previously were looking at soliciting his work, or they're just lying because they're back to the corner. Yeah. And then we also have all the accusations that he was biased. Chris Steele was biased against the Trump family and and that came out when I believe Horowitz had gone to UK to interview him and he said if anything, I have a favorable view of the Trump family because I'm up. BAM BAM BAM BAM I've been really trying to believe it. Yeah, my prediction is if the story gets more traction and people start asking more questions about it,

they're going to say the Trump side will say, yeah, we thought about using him, but he's so incompetent that we didn't give him the job and then he did the dossier as a hit piece because he was mad at us for not hiring him. I bet they'll say that. Yeah, if they even bother. Yeah, with it at all, with a reply and with that. And there was an article that came out like before the IG report was released that said Kristiel was notified about a piece of information about him that would be coming out in the IG report and didn't give him a chance to respond to that. And I'm wondering if that was the piece. Probably. Yeah. Yeah.

So the articles from impeachment passed the judiciary. Next we expect a robust report by tonight Sunday night at midnight With a detailed explanation of the articles and I'll go over what we expect to be in that report with my a while a while a later Because you know they alluded the articles from impeachment allude to Mueller But don't mention him by name and they they are just trying to establish a pattern of behavior And looking at the totality of the evidence. And I think that that will be more in we be explained in more detail when this report comes out. We don't have it as of this hour. And she and I will also discuss McConnell and Graham. Oh, this weekend some McConnell was like, well, I'm just going to be working with the president on everything and

putting forth what he wants in the Senate trial. And then Lindsey Graham saying, I'm not even going to pretend that I'm a fair juror or something. Like just absolutely ridiculously, like, I don't even know. I can't wait to see his face when Chief Justice John Roberts administers the oath to him. when Chief Justice John Roberts administers the oath to him. Just like, and what's he, what's he swearing on? Right. Like maybe it's just, it's like a Bible cover, but inside is like a Playboy magazine.

Mm-hmm. Just a picture of Trump. Like the one with the Melania in it. I don't know. I don't know what he's gonna swear at, but it's just interesting because he, you know, he's purportedly man of God and trying to be fair and all this other stuff. He will be required to take a note that he's going to do this judiciously and fairly. He's already said with his mouth, I'm not going to do it. I wonder if anyone will bring that up.

Just kick it off with a bunch of drama. It should be in the opening arguments, if I would put it in there. Yeah, because I mean, and sadly, like there's, the Republicans whole strategy in the House of Representatives for impeachment in the House of Representatives for impeachment, because the House has sole authority to impeach the president in the House, have gone on with their defense that this is a sham process, and there's no due process in its fake, and

it's a kangaroo court. And of course, they're accusing their enemy of that which they are guilty of, because that's what's going to happen in the Senate. And so it's going to be, that makes it really hard for us to be like, this is a sham process because they'll just be like, well, you started it. And so, you know, I fear for that, but I'm interested to see how they write that into or discuss it in the opening arguments if they touch it at all. Because it's hard to defend against a sham process defense and then go in with that knowing it's a rubber stamp in the Senate

and that they already before they even see it or hear any evidence, they're just going to vote a specific way. Yeah. I hope the Democrats go into this just knowing that they're not going to get the outcome that obviously they want and that knowing that they're just going to go through this with as much dignity as they can and just be professional and just get it done. Calm. Yeah. We don't really have another choice.

You know, no, the other choice is not sending the articles to the Senate and I'll go over that a little bit later in the show. But Tuesday night, Tuesday, first of all, during the day, there's going to be a rules committee hearing during which the House will hammer out the process to send the articles voted on by the judiciary to the full House for a vote. Pelosi said she has not whipped any of her caucus, meaning she's not trying to persuade any other great. I know.

She wants to let members vote their conscience. So she said that. And then Tuesday night, there are mass demonstrations planned on impeachment because Tuesday night is believed to be the eve of impeachment in over 400 cities. There's a lot of different protests and demonstrations, not protest, but demonstrations for impeachment. Is there a hashtag or some sort of rallying? I signed up for the one in San Diego, which yeah, I think that does sound right. But yeah, I know it's happening on a waterfront park in San Diego tonight, actually,

after we are today. Oh, it's not Tuesday night? No, they said they were going to do it. The one that I'm thinking about had organized a bunch the Sunday before they expected to happen. Now, there is no vote on the calendar yet scheduled in the full house. I think they're just taking it one step at a time. I don't presume to sort of postulate or hypothesize that that means they won't have a vote. So I just want to make that clear. But there are tons of demonstrations. You can just look them up. Yes. On the move on is the one that is going through. Yeah.

Yeah, I got an email that says, San Diego in Peddatchment rally typo in the subject. And that's how to impodate the president. It says the house will probably vote on impeachment in a few days. So we will rally at noon to 1 p.m. Sunday, December 15, 2019. That means right now, right now, that's what it's happening at Waterfront Park on the west side of the county. I've been building. Got it. Yeah. I'm sure that there are Tuesdays and tomorrow.

Demonstrations. Yeah. Uh, planned in our town to. So there's over 400, 401 I think was the last count. And in related news, I wanted to wait to see, you know, talking about withholding the articles from the Senate or, you know, sitting on them for a minute. I was all ready to wait and see what the Supreme Court said about the three Trump tax cases before I made up my mind on an impeachment timeline personally. During last Friday's Supreme Court conference, they considered granting certs in both the Scyvans and House Oversight, Mazars, Sapena cases, and they were considering a stay in the House Deutsche Bank in Capital I, Sapena case. They have granted both certs. They will hear arguments on the merits in March,

and we should expect a decision in the June, July timeframe unless they decide to come out with a decision sooner. And they granted the stay in the Deutsche Bank case as well. And then of course January 3rd, we have the DC District Court of Appeals hearing the Mueller-Granjury Materials and McGann cases as well. Those haven't made it to the Supreme Court yet. January 3rd, presumably they would make it in the March timeframe, and so all five cases would probably be if they decide to hear all five, would be heard in March with decisions out in June, the June July timeframe.

So this leaves us with a couple options. I mean, obviously, I think that they will vote on articles of impeachment this week in the full house Probably send them to the Senate after this Christmas break One option is that we can just allow these this tax def to come out right in the middle of the campaign and just make it a public thing and And and that just helps us with the 2020 election Another option people are talking about is we can impeach him again. I don't know how politically what a good idea that is. We're all kind of sick of it. And I hate to say that because I don't want to be, but that doesn't belittle the fact that it is tiresome. It is tiresome. It's a factor.

I do think though that to remain consistent again with the reason that I think they're continuing on with impeachment currently is because they have to. They're morally obligated to. So it does raise a really interesting question of what different avenue then can they exhaust after this then if it's not going to be through Congress again. Right. And if they are morally obligated to impeach, which is why they're doing it now, why wouldn't they be morally obligated if federal, you know, financial crimes came to impeach, which is why they're doing it now. Why wouldn't they be morally obligated if federal financial crimes came to light or his loans were underwritten by

Russia or something really like smoking gun type shit. That's a nice way to answer that. Sure. More stuff will come out. And so then you have to say, well, if it was our duty to impeach for Ukraine's shake-down scheme, isn't it also our duty to impeach these crimes? And then of course, there will be the arguments politically made, probably on both sides that say, hey, we're in the middle of an election year now, we are by, you know, presumably by the time any subpoenas work their way

through the courts, it would be well past the election. If they, you know, needed to do additional subpoenas, although they might not, they might have everything they need in these subpoenas. And then of course, the Vance stuff we probably won't even see, that's going to a grand jury and that's part of his investigation. And it's interesting because that puts him past the statute of limitations for misdemeanor fraud, which means he would have to be able to prove felony fraud in his cases, you know, once he got the eight years of business tax documents from Mizar's.

And so then does he indict a sitting president because he's not under the Department of Justice and he's not beholden to, although some might argue that the Department of Justice federal courts aren't beholden to it either, that Office of Legal Counsel memo that says you can't indict a sitting president. So we could have Trump tax stuff come out and an indictment of the president out of the

Manhattan District Attorney's office right in the middle of election season and the argument would be, look, hey, the election is right around the corner, let the people decide, which is kind of what Komi's been saying this whole time, let the people decide. And, you know, we've been over here like, hey, it's your duty to impeach and they've done it. But then it does bring up that question. Is it then your duty to impeach again if he crimes again? You know?

Oh, God. It's tough because I bet you for a lot of Democrats, they have some constituents who are like, yeah, impeach them for everything. Fuckin' go for it. But other constituents who are like, I'm exhausted. Yeah. Totally. And also Democrats in Congress too, like there's that one dude who they're there are Democrats that exist in purple districts too that are

kind of like, my hands are sort of tied here. I don't know how much longer I can go along with, you know, the will of the Democratic Party when I'm trying to get real elected back in my district. That's a van Drew guy switched party. Exactly. Yeah, I was, although he was kind of really already a Republican. Right. Yeah, he's one of the people I was thinking of, totally, that was coming from like a superb swing district. Yeah. Yeah, that was a public district.

Yeah. So yeah, so that's the whole don't send them to the Senate theory. And a lot of people are like, well, since McConnell has said it's going to be not a fair trial. And Lindsey Graham has said he won't be a fair jury. And then we've got Johnson, who might have to recuse himself. And you know, then we're at a, then what does that do to the voting majority in the Senate as far as the trial goes? Probably nothing.

Because they make the rules under the Constitution. That's fair. That's what they get to do. Not a complaint. Not a complaint. Just an unfortunate fact. Uh-huh. And there's also the thought that, and I'll talk to Maya Wiley about this a little bit later, that doing that could really bolster the Republican argument that you're taking due process away from the president, because the House is Democrats and they have sole responsibility to impeach, and the Senate is Republicans and the Constitution has given them sole responsibility to try and convict and remove if they were acquitt or dismiss whatever they decide to do. So that would actually take a giant chunk out

of what would be due process if it were a fair trial. But who knows what they'll say. I think it's just gonna be talking points and they'll have the trial So we will be right back with more news including some new investigations so stay with us Hey everybody, it's AG in this episode of Mueller She wrote is brought to you by my new favorite bra by women for women called well people who identify as women third love Third love is committed to finding the most comfortable bra

You've ever worn half of all all women fall in between cup sizes, including myself, so it was practically impossible to find a bra that fit perfectly off the rack until I found third love. Third love has 80 different sizes, industry leader, including their signature half cup sizes. With third love, I was able to find my perfect fit in about a minute by taking their fit finder online quiz. They use data from millions of real women that have already taken the quiz, and they take into account cup size and shape to find the ideal bra for you. They have fit stylists available every day to help via text chat or telephone. It's absolutely the most comfortable bra I've ever worn.

I'm kind of obsessed there all I wear now. The straps don't dig. There's no tag. So it doesn't itch. The bras are light. And I hate when you pull the tag out and then you get a hole in your bra. So there's none of that, and they're lightweight with super thin memory foam cups that mold to your shape. And best of all, third love has the perfect fit promise, and this is their fill and throppick side, which I love. You have 60 days to wear it, wash it and put it to the test, and if it's not the perfect fit,

you can return it and third level don't need it to someone in need. Third love knows there's a perfect bra for everyone, so right now they're offering our listeners 15% off your first order, so go to thirdlove.com slash AG, now to find your perfect fitting're offering our listeners 15% off your first order. So go to thirdlove.com slash AG now to find your perfect fitting bra and get 15% off your first purchase. That's thirdlove.com slash AG for 15% off today. You'll be glad you did.

Alright, new investigations popping up every day. It's investigations whack em all. So watchdog group American Oversight, We've talked about them a lot on this show Have filed a pair of lawsuits this past Wednesday for Treasury Department record Steve As part of its investigation it detides between Trump administration officials and a Russian company that has invested $200 million in an aluminum plant and Kentucky the FOIA suit seeks communications between Steve, Minuchin, Minuchin, whatever and The FOIA suit seeks communications between Steve, Mnuchin, Mnuchin, whatever. And multiple entities, including EN plus, and it's subsidiary Rousal.

These are companies, if that sounds familiar, associated with Russian oligarch, we know to be Oleg Darapaska. And as you know, he worked with Manafort. He Manafort owed him a bunch of money. Darapaska sued him, and then Manafort went to work for Trump, and then all of a sudden the lawsuits disappeared. And he had briefings via Constantine Kalimnik who was also indicted yachts, yachts, on boats.

And that's where Nastya Rybka came into play because she had video because she was, Derapaska was her boyfriend, quote unquote, hired boyfriend. Don't like labels, but that's what she says. And so she had video of this download of information, and the Manifort shared polling information with this guy, so that's who Darapaska is. He's also sanctioned. They're also seeking, well, not anymore.

They're seeking communications with Mitch McConnell, who voted to lift sanctions on those entities just prior to the deal. With Brady Industries, that's the company building the plant in his home state of Kentucky. In December, the treasury said it would be lifting sanctions on Darapaska because he sold off the majority of his shares, at least half of his shares, but they all went to his family and the Kremlin. And so, the sanctions placed on him were for 2016 election interference by the Obama administration.

And Brady Industries announced the deal in May, earning McConnell his Moscow-Mitch moniker. American oversight filed the four requests last April, and the Treasury has yet to comply, which is what prompted the two lawsuits filed last week. So we'll keep you posted on that case as it makes its way through the courts. I'm glad that this is happening, because when that story first broke, it was like, what the fuck? Kentuckyians were that way.'re like what? Remember when we saw the video of that rally where everybody was like Moscow Mitch, Moscow Mitch and he's up there like you shut up. Yeah well then also I forget what the split of the deal was but it was something where like

so much of the shares of the project is going to the Russian tide company versus the American based company too. So it's like none of it makes sense at all. No, we have to remember Rand Paul's from there as well. And he had that love letter written by Trump to Putin, like when he went to Moscow. Like, hey, can I get a letter from you? So I have a reason to talk to him. For a person who's right, yeah, that's special.

I know. I used to pass love letters like that and I middle school to my best friend. I was like, you like sending food up to a triangle? With the flap inserted? Oh my god. I hope that's how they communicate with each other. And then somebody just eats it. Yeah, all gel pens. Hearts for eyes that got other eyes with hearts. I'm being impeached, small heart above the eye.

I got a lot of notes. Every report got I ever had growing up. It was like Amanda is a very bright child, but she's very distracting to the other students with how much she talks. That's funny. Every time. Every single time. They were like, you could be applying yourself

more if you didn't spend so much time talking and making friends. And I was like, but that's why I'm here. That's fun. I don't need, I don't need your teaching to teach me things. I'm here to find a man. Third grade. I know, right? Jesus. I actually just watched Mona Lisa smile recently and I was, did you have you seen that movie? I watched it and I was like, no! Go to school! I'm not saying that. Is it about a woman who doesn't pursue education? Yeah, it was a witch societal pressure. By the way, there's something wrong being Jane Homoife.

I want to put that out there, obviously not. I think that's exactly what the decision was. But yes, it's about all these women in the 1950s who went to Wellesley who were like budding feminist intellectuals and they are getting into these amazing law schools. And they're like, no, I'm just going gonna go ahead, babies. Which is fine, obviously. But in the movie, the way that they were with the characters, I was like,

no! Like it seems like they maybe wanted other things. But anyway, I did that in school. What did your parkour say? What were the complaints on yours? I mean, I hate to disappoint, so I really was just a fucking kiss-ass. Oh, were you? Yeah, I did really well in school.

He did not being perfect. I was a square dude. Really? That was in my actual like like classrooms, except I did bite children. In a bit. I was expecting that. I bet I forgot about that part. I bit children in kindergarten. Okay, that was a long time. Once I got to elementary school

I was like, okay, I get the rules now. I guess don't you hate that you give up biting people when you hit the big time? Yeah, I like elementary school now. I need to stop biting I mean, it's all definitely origins of a person desperate for attention really so but then when I know you're coming Yes, exactly. But yes, in school, my report cards were very much like, Jordan is a joy to have in class. Yeah, I was a pleasure to have in class. Yeah, that was a math lead.

Were you? Oh, nice. Shit, math. But I was really good at any sort of like language or social studies, that's something. That makes sense. Arti things. I was art's president of student council.

Ooh, yeah. That sounds fun. And now you have Boo-Hair. And now I have Boo-Hair. Arts president. Yeah. That's awesome. We need a fucking secretary of art in this country right now.

I just made my throat out. I just made my throat out. I just made my throat out. I just made my throat out. I just made my throat out. I did all the things. I did musical theater. I did choir.

I did band. I did debate. I did all the things. I did musical theater, I did choir, I did band, I did debate, I did like history, I did all the things, history, all of it. Just not math. Just not math. I was so bad, almost failed. Anyway, well here we are. You have any math questions? Let me know. That's ammo for Republicans being like liberals don't know how to math. They don't understand, they're afraid of math because numbers are Arabic and so okay so here's something interesting to you and I'm gonna talk to Maya a little bit later about Bill Barn and why she thinks he's a good candidate for impeachment but there's more to this story Jordan you have this from I think it was Huffington Post right yes so Walter Shobb it was pretty much a

Twitter thread that he posted. And he's a former US head of US office of government ethics. He's a really, really good follow on Twitter, not to mention his public service record, but he's just great on Twitter. And he came out on Tuesday with a thread this week saying basically that bill bar is a threat to democracy like hands down and that he he's afraid that bar is going to try to interfere in the 2020 election and that we would basically be stupid to think otherwise that he's not going to do that. He already has right. When all this trips make so much.

Exactly. He's trying to discredit the motor findings or whatever the thing. Exactly. Who knows. And that's pretty much what that's what this thread largely does. And I think it's they picked up on this thread specifically because it just is a very concise especially as far as Twitter threads are concerned. It's very concise and it's very to the point and it covers again what you just said, you

know, the fact that he's going out actively engaging in these things. He has a history of doing it. We pulled our, you know, we pulled the covers over our eyes the first time when they confirmed him and he was saying, no, no, don't confirm the sky. He has a history of doing this and then he comes in and does the exact same shit. One of one of the things that he pointed out was the fact that he came out and defines of his own Inspector General's report, obviously this month that found the FBI's investigation into Trump's ties to Russia were not politically motivated. And I thought that these were some of the best quotes from that thread. He says, Barr, who traveled the world looking for ways to defend the politician he serves instead of the

rule of law, has also signaled he may use the criminal investigative apparatus of the state to go after perceived enemies of his boss, weaponizing it as a tool of a political party. It's important not to make the same mistake twice. Some people underestimate Bar's ruthless partnership before. No one should do that again. Like Trump, Bar is capable of doing anything he can get away with, and that includes interfering in the 2020 election if we let him. And I think that's the really important part is if we let him. Yeah, and my understanding, you know, I mean, there's so many examples. There's the Southern District in New York hush money case that sort of went dark and a judge had to come out and close that and release everything over so that anyone else in New York did pick it up. Manhat and

District Attorney's sidevants picked that case up. There was the McCabe trying to indict McCabe, and I don't think he still has formally closed that investigation into McCabe. So McCabe's just like out in the wind. And then of course, recently with the Inspector General report with that low level FBI employee who altered an email in the Pfizer warrant case, that was criminally referred by Inspector Horowitz

to the Department of Justice. And so that is something I'm sure that he's looking into probably wanting to indict that guy as well, although I don't think there's a case there for that. But I haven't seen all the facts. I don't want to jump, you know, jump ahead of myself. Maybe there he there is a smoking gun email where he was like, hi, totally changed the email and ha ha ha, you know, I don't know. I haven't seen all the facts in that case yet.

It just, they have a track record of really weak cases. So yeah, there's a fact obviously of him spinning the molar report summaries in general to the public. There's that. There's a fact that he willingly took the baton, that Trump ripped out of Sessions hands and gave to him to come in. Spirit stick. Yeah, exactly.

And that alone, I mean, I know that you can't really blame bar for that necessarily, but he shop points out that that could even be an impeachable offense. It should be an impeachable offense, the fact that he fired sessions so he could put someone in there that was gonna shut down these investigations. It's just, he has such a long trail. Like when we look back on this era, you know, whatever, 40, 50 years from now, it is gonna be like, bar is going to be the name.

I think that sticks out to me. One of them, yeah, for sure. Outside of Trump, obviously. The most outside of Trump. Yeah. You know, it's funny. These are two headlines. When the last week, it really jumped out to me how different they were.

One is from Slate, which is obviously more lap-t leaning, and the headline is, bar is trying to erase the truth. And then there's the headline from the National Review, which is Bill Barr has nothing to apologize for. And like, those are the two narratives being spied, essentially, just like, night and day. One thing that was interesting to me, though, is, you know how we often look to the Democrats who are in charge and think, even if we disagree with them, we have to trust

them and that they know it's best for us. We keep saying this, okay, I trust Nancy, I trust Adam and Shiv, they know what they're doing, like I've put some faith. This is kind of the narrative that is on this National Review article, too, which is like implying, they're essentially saying like, he must know more about this than we do, so we should trust him. So dumb. Well.

Yeah. Yeah. So. He does know more about it for sure. Yeah. But it's actually just thinking like because you're so quick. I know more about it than they do. Right.

But they're kind of spinning the same thing. You know what I mean? We're trying to put trust in our party to delete us the right direction. But this is the same narrative that they're having here. We're saying like, okay, yes, he may have come out against his own IG, but there's a reason for that. He must know things we don't know. So anyway, just kind of interesting.

I thought that narrative on the other side is kind of similar to what we're feeling. That is interesting. Yeah, I mean, obviously I just have all these differences popping up on my brain because I just think they're so incredibly wrong. Yeah, but yeah, that is that is the issue is that people are just blindly loyal to him and them. Yeah, well, they allow them to be. Yes.

So they allow them to continue to maintain this sort of... I mean, dystopian falsehood in their head, and so it brings them comfort that they can do that, that someone's allowing them to. Yeah, and I would also like put more faith into the party who's actually doing research and investigative work and bringing forth witnesses, and rather than the party who's going, you know, nothing wrong, we don't have to provide any evidence, you know, like, it's a lot, I think it's nothing to see here. Nothing to see here. So, yeah. Anyway, yeah, you're right. Thank you for that story.

Yeah, totally. He is as scary, dude. I'm going to read that article too, because I'm just curious. I'm just curious what is in their brain right now. Oh, the national review one. Yeah. Yeah. Because I feel like Democrats, I'll make this point quick, but like Democrats, when we give faith, you know, when we have faith in Pelosi, it's

because we know and have confidence that they're working towards the end goal, which is bringing Trump who is a known criminal in multiple ways to justice at least in the political sense. in multiple ways to justice, at least in the political sense, whereas with Bill Barr, are they thinking, you know, I just trust him to cover everything else. Because it's gonna cover, yeah, exactly. Because it's gonna cover everything else. It's like, I hardly doubt that they're like, you know, I believe he's gonna bring,

he truly has like a correct conception of justice. I feel like they're just thinking, I truly believe he's gonna do everything he can to keep a Republican Empower and they stop short of that argument right the the logic of that argument like hey We don't we shouldn't have to hand everything over the Trump's taxes or his private affair No one should have to see any of this. We shouldn't have to hand over Communications between the Trump administration officials. That's all protected by privilege And I trust that they're doing the right thing for our country.

And then it stopped short of, but why are you afraid of seeing what it is? Like no one ever continues that thought to its full conclusion, which is, but so if everything's on the up and up, why can't we just see it all? And of course, the self-fulfilling preferential argument is, you don't need to,

and we shouldn't waste our time with it. Right, and are you really so dedicated to that just on principle? Yeah, that you shouldn't have to show them. Yeah, it's like, okay, but let's just assume you didn't care about that thing on principle. Let's assume you cared about the actual issue at hand. Right, and then what?

And then stop walking around saying you're the most transparent president in history. If your whole argument is to keep these things from coming out because you don't, there's no legal reason. There's no legal basis for you to get to see them. Yeah, also you're withholding shit quote unquote, unprinciple because you feel like you shouldn't have to.

It was called obstruction of justice bitch. Whoa. You know, anyway. It was called obstruction of justice bitch. Whoa. You know, anyway. It's just fiery today. Anyway, also when we're thinking about bars that he's part of this whole like, Mike Pence vibes, like, you know, we're ruining the moral order of society. That's a big guy.

A fashion, crystal fashion speech that he gave. Yeah, it's pretty scary. He's like, we're a crystal fashion, crystal fashion. Yeah, well, you know, it's pretty scary. Oh, that word. He's like, oh, Crystal Fash is a word. Crystal Fash is. Yeah, well, you know, it's a thing. So, he, that's something that kind of skips me about him too. Skies.

Yeah, that, I haven't used that word in a while. Hebe Gb's. Yeah, hebe Gb's. It skips a real word. I, or it's like a fine word. I, in 80s high school movies. It's like, skievy. Skievy Chodes.

Yeah. Looking it up. Skievy Chodes. Skievy Chodes, locker it up. Skievy Chodes. Skievy Chodes locker. It's a reward. Okay. Skievy Chodes locker. I miss that word. It's like a daily joke. Skievy Chodes locker.

I'm just thinking. Alright, we'll be right back with some hot notes and the fantasy indictment. Luke, so stay with us. Hey everybody, it's AG and this segment of Mullershoe Road is brought to you by NUME. It is hard to stick to a diet plan, especially around the holidays. Last year I tried to go cold turkey on cold turkey But ended up making sandwiches instead. Bread. It's my enemy and my friend. It's a love-hate relationship. I've tried different weight loss plans. I've lost weight and In the past I've gained it back, but not anymore. When I started using NUME about a year ago,

I lost about 17 pounds. And it changed the way I think about weight loss and about food. It changed my relationship with food. And I've been able to keep it off. With NUME, you'll lose the weight and the guilt. And you'll learn how to develop a new relationship with food and help you live a healthier lifestyle.

Britos can be your friend. With NUME, you have a weight loss plan in your own hands. Literally, it's on your phone whenever you need it. So you have a personalized training and support team for less than the price of a single appointment with a nutritionist or a personal trainer. Noom makes food tracking super easy with one of the biggest food databases available

and allows you to track your meal habits, visualize portion sizes, and see calorie density out of glance. What I like most is it doesn't use shaming and it doesn't tell you you can't have certain foods. It just teaches you moderation and how to identify and address the habits that have been blocking your success. New masks you to try something new to commit to just 10 minutes a day to you.

Try out the easy 30 second online evaluation to help see what your new health plan will look like. Newm is designed for results. It's out with the old habits and new with dot com slash AG to start your trial today. Again, that's num dot com slash AG. Start losing weight for good. And this episode of Moller She Wrote is brought to you by Best Fiends.

Sometimes it's Moller She Wrote, and then it's Moller She Wrests. So after a long day of resisting the propaganda and corruption of this current administration, sometimes I really need a break from all the stress and craziness. And one of my favorite mental refreshers and palette cleansers is the new puzzle game app called Best Fiends. Best Fiends is engaging and fun with interesting story and challenging puzzles,

but it's a casual game so you don't have to be all gung-how about it. You can play it as much as little or as little as you want. It's not timed so there's no pressure or stress which I love. It's just a great game. It's my go-to when I just need a break. I collect all the best fiends, I level them up, you can discover their special powers and you battle the slugs from Mount Boom. I'm on level 76 now, which is great. I absolutely love this game. To me, best fiends is a perfect game to keep my mind off the orange nightmare, and it keeps me relaxed and still challenged. The cool thing is that creators are constantly adding new levels and events, so it's always

fresh. Best fiends is free to download, free to download, and I love that you don't need the internet to play it, so it's great for traveling. I play it on the plane all the time, and on the subway, the DC Metro, it's good there too. So give it a try. Engage a brain with fun puzzles and collect tons of cute characters too. Five-star rated mobile puzzle game with over 100 million downloads globally, holy moly, download free on the Apple App Store or Google Play. That's friends without the R best Fiends.

Alright, welcome back. Hot notes. All right, we haven't had an NRA update in a while. Jordan from you, because we had two of your things today. Nuno's in the NRA. Yes. So I say you go with the NRA. I'll cover Nuno's. Okay, that sounds good.

New York, a 30- General, Latisha James, whoops, she's the best in the world. She, yeah, she's making a pretty aggressive stride in her investigation into the NRA and their mask parade is a law abiding interest group. The office issued a wide-raging subpoena. This is out of reporting for the New York Times and that subpoena is requesting a bunch of different things

related to questions of campaign finance, payments and payments made to board members and also tax compliance issues. There's really a lot of stuff so I'll go into each of them a little bit in a second. One of the specific things they're looking into is the NRH transfers of money between other NRA controlled organizations, which is interesting. So like the NRA Foundation, for example, NRA Foundation had $36 million diverted by the NRA for reasons that it only be presumed to be sketch.

So just like when I'm moving money around between themselves, essentially, it's also known that the NRA Foundation has transferred $200 million to the NRA between 2010 and 2017. So, the question here is obviously, because donations to the foundation are only the ones that can be tax deductible.

Is the NRA donating money to itself from its own foundation and trying to claim and as being tax deductible that way? And the answer is probably yes, that's gonna be my guess. Yeah, I don't think Tis James would be looking into it real hard if she didn't have a feeling that there was some sort of malfeasance.

Yeah, tax fraud going on. Exactly. And I didn't know that only donations to the foundation were tax deductible. So yeah, it's very interesting. Just they're just trying to shave off money in every step of the process. I think because it's a 501c4 political organization, political donations are not tax deductible. And so that's why they have, that must be why they set up the foundation. Yeah,

totally. So that people and entities could make and write off these donations and then just hand it on over to themselves. To themselves. Is that nuts? That's nuts. That is really nuts. The attorney general of DC, where the foundation itself is chartered, because NRA is chartered in New York, that's why Latisha James has it. And then in DC, they've got the NRA foundation. So now, they're attorney general. That's stupid.

Yes, it's a chartered thing. I know. Everybody in New York. Yeah, why isn't it in Texas or something? Right? Yeah. Yeah, I said the charter. I know. Everybody in New York. Yeah, why isn't it in Texas or something? Right. Yeah. Yeah, I said the last time I came out. It's pretty fucking blue state to put that in.

Yeah, I don't know. Um, because Trump is in New York. I'm just kidding. I don't think it runs. He's a Lord of men now. I don't think it runs that deep at all. Trump is a fucking Democrat, honestly, throughout a lot of his life. Folks, for whatever you want to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.

Yeah. That's why they put in a new investment in that. That was his only successful investment then, the NRA. But, no, I'm just kidding. I don't think that they have ties at all. Well, they do have ties for sure, but not not that intense. That was just a joke. But point is, Attorney General DC is also now going to be looking into the NRA foundation. So hopefully we can be looking out for headlines from that office too. Oh, the attorney general DC. Uh- going. So this subpoena is also looking for documents related to the internal communications about NRA's FEC filings and a top of that communications about or between two political consulting firms. One is called Starbird Strategic and the other is on message. And so what's the complaints surrounding these companies, basically, it was filed by Giffords,

which is a gun control group, by the way. So they alleged that the NRA paid millions of dollars to Starbird, basically as a way to give money to Republican candidates as advised by the other group on message. And when they did this, they were circumventing the laws that restrict how much groups like the NRA can donate to political campaigns. Yeah. So basically just funneling money through a different

organization essentially. Giford's... Go ahead. Carl Rayson, is his name. Yes, thank you. Yes, it is. Yeah, it's Carl Rayson. Jesse Lee was the federal actor, US Attorney General. Yes. Yes. The DC Attorneypenter. Justly was the federal, after US Attorney General. Yes. The DC Attorney General. Cool. Thank you. So, yeah, Giffords sued the FEC for failing to act on that as well.

So there's two lawsuits just related to those two companies and their interactions with the NRA because they're making the claim that those two companies were functionally indistinguishable. Essentially, again, another scenario where they just have another company that exists for the sole purpose of having a funnel of money that can just go unaccounted for as it should be. And did they bring up the advertising groups that you have reported on the account stuff? Yeah. Yeah, that is also another part of it too.

They brought up that as well, because yeah yeah, there's and that one is interesting because Akram and McQueen I think is called they're also Pushing back on the NRA saying that Or well there there's at the NRA assuming them saying that they overbuild them and then Akram and McQueen is like don't throw us under the bus. we didn't do this shit. So it's like a really messy lawsuit that has a lot of different branches. And we haven't reported on that one specifically in like months.

So maybe I can look into that and see if there's any updates on that case. But yeah, they did mention that too. This is such a large wide sweeping subpoena. The subpoena also asked for documents related to NRAs filings with the IRS, and that's a part of the continued probe into the NRA's tax exempt status, and if they really deserve that or not, ultimately.

It makes me wonder if James is going to take advantage of that new New York law that forces the tax returns, state tax returns, to be handed over. Because she could find in any of this NRA documentation that there was Trump super PACs involved and then Trump personally, or Trump organization, or anything involved in the Trump family, and that would give her cause to go under this New York state law to get the state tax returns from the New York State, you know, tax man. And she could turn those over to Congress under this new law. That would be badass.

I would be a fan of that. I like those beans. Because Richie Neal hasn't asked for them in the House Ways and Means Committee. I don't know if he has to, if it's a push pull, if she can just give them or if he has to ask for them, or if the Intel or the financial services committee or some other committee can get them or if it has to be ways and means.

There were three committees listed in that law. Joint, like a Senate House financial, like the Joint Finance Oversight or something like that. I'd have to look at what the, and I know one of them is Houseways and Means after look at what the third one is. I think it's a Senate committee, Senate financial committee. So there was like a dual, a joint finance, a Senate finance, and then the House finance. But Rituniel has an ass for them.

And these are the committees that it was determined to have like basically carte blanche authority to ask for those documents, right? Like one of the new tax law. Yeah. But in the regular old law, it's the Houseways and Means Committee that has carte blanche to actually I think it's just Congress, but it became the Houseways and Means Committee because that's where taxes are fun after research that. But I think that's I think that's the case. Nice. Yeah. Well, there's so much inter-twination. I'm thinking that it worked.

Yeah, between those committees, between those cases that are in the courts, between what now one attorney general soon to be, too, is going to be looking into just in the intersections that all roads are leading to the NRA to a degree in some way so they're going to be investigated for a very long time. I'm thinking. I'm also not interested in how the Trump inaugural which Tiss Chames is also investigating might tie into that. Yeah, because if the issue was born out of the other, right. Yeah, if like one of the main issues is funneling money into places where you're not supposed to have unfettered access to funneling money into, then that falls under that umbrella for sure, doesn't it?

Hmm, most definitely. Most definitely. Most. Yes. Yeah, they have a way of moving money around. Yeah, that's really interesting. Yeah. So yeah, that's going to be fantastic when we hear the results of that investigation.

And we will, because she's test James, she's not beholden to this Jaggoth. Yeah, Bill Barr. I'm just Jaggoth. I'm just Jaggoth in a while. We're getting some vintage slang up in here. Steve's Jaggoth. Skieby showed Jaggoth.

And I'm going to do the old sign for telling somebody off. That's not a flip you, but a different one. What do you grab your bicep and put your fist up in there? That's a good one. Good old gesture. It is, yeah. And then when I flip people off, I use the flip like I don't do the flick off, I do the flip off. The fingers are all there.

Oh, I did know that was the difference. Flip off versus so flick off is when you do like this thingy. That's what I say. I'm pretty interesting. I'm just sitting around giving each other the middle finger. Yeah, it just doesn't seem tall enough when you don't hold your fingers all the way down. You get a whole good ring. You get a whole the other fingers in place to like have a higher middle finger or a triumphant tall enough when you don't hold your fingers all the way down. You gotta hold the other fingers in place to have a higher middle finger, more triumphant

middle finger. That's true. You can pull a tend in that way to try and go at it too fiercely if you're holding all the other ones back. We're talking about obscene figure gesture injuries. I will thank you for that reporting. Yes, that's right. All right.

I hope they're fucked. And I really think they will be eventually. Yeah. So they're already going bankrupt. And that's just wonderful. And one of the reasons why maybe they're transferring money all over the place too. Mm-hmm.

Yeah. So let's see. What I'm going to talk about in New Ness today, but we already know that the entire Ukraine scandal was likely funded by Russia, okay? Because we just found this $1 million payment from a Russian account to Lev Parnass, and we'll go over that in the fantasy indictment league. He failed to disclose, as part of his bail agreement, he was supposed to disclose, and his

wife was supposed to disclose all of his stuff, and he just didn't tell him about a million bucks he got from Russia, an account in Russia. Just a cool mail. But the Republican ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee that investigated the Ukraine-shaked-down scheme, Devin Nunez, as we know, is involved in multiple lawsuits but has yet to disclose how he's paying for the legal fees involved in these multiple of priviless lawsuits. So every quarter, as a politician, you have to file a campaign finance report.

And the one Nunez filed for third quarter with the FEC have to file a campaign finance report and the one new Nez filed for third quarter with the FEC shows he paid a Fresno law firm $3,400 for a suit filed against a retired farmer named Paul Buxman who accused Nez of being a fake farmer. But Nez withdrew that case within weeks of filing it probably because discovery was going to suck and show that he's a fake farmer. And the only legal that's the only legal fees that are listed in his disclosure, nothing else.

We know Nunez's filed lawsuits against Twitter to anonymous accounts on Twitter called Devon Nunez's cow and Devon Nunez's mom. I know. Laptop every time. So we take you to this. A Republican political strategist, some media companies, some journalists,

a progressive watchdog groups, a political research firm that worked for Hillary's 2016 campaign, and Fusion GPS, and the retired farmer that I just told you about. And everyone's wondering how he's paying for all this legal work. All suits were filed by Virginia attorney Stephen Biss, alleging the journalists and media companies

and political operatives conspired to defame Nunez and undermine his ability to lead the House Intelligence Committee. But he's only reported that one payment to a different lawyer for that retired farmer case. Nunez has also said he will definitely be filing a seventh lawsuit. This one against AT&T Verizon and the House Democrats for releasing records of phone calls that showed him communicating with Trump allies in the Ukraine scheme, including Parnas, the guy who we just found out received a million dollar payout from Russia.

Lucky number seven. He wants to open that lawsuit. He really, uh, 100,000 million beans on him pulling it out a week after he files it. According to the Fresno Bee, Nunez would have to set up a legal defense fund to accept free legal services or to receive money from a benefactor, but members of Congress have very strict rules against receiving substantial gifts. And Nunes has no such fun to set up. There are some legal exceptions that allow congressional reps to get pro bono legal services

without a legal defense fund, but none of those exceptions or exemptions apply to Nunes because the lawsuits would have to have a public interest and cannot be personal in nature. And these are all, you may mean me. You're making the argument that they're misleading the public or something. Which could affect their representation in Congress. I don't know. I don't know that the argument would stick because he's not suing on behalf of the public. He's suing on behalf of himself and he's seeking monetary damages.

So he constituents of Devonunis. Yes. Shall it up. They're like, no, we're fine. Yeah, you can just go. We're good. I would hope so. Now he could be paying for these lawsuits himself, but defamation suits aren't cheap. Six figures usually when you're suing for over a million bucks in damages, and he's doing for like 200 million and 300 million. And Nunez reported his reported income only shows his congressional salary, 174,000 a year, and his wife's teacher salary. That's a lot more than I thought they got.

So that seems unlikely, unless he's come into some giant amount of money in 2019 that hasn't been disclosed yet, because the forms aren't due yet for 2019. The most feasible explanation though, is that he could be promising his lawyer a contingency fee if they win. But that would require bis to front all the costs,

and most of these lawsuits are unlikely to produce any cash awards or settlements because they're also dumb. But BIS is getting a lot of publicity out of this. So it may be opportunism. You know, the house rules likely don't require contingency fees to be disclosed. They're not mentioned in the house rules. So that's my guess is that he's doing this on a contingency fee. Kind of knowing they won't get any money awarded, but he's getting all on a contingency fee, kind of knowing they won't get any money awarded, but he's getting all this free advertising. Yeah, free advertising.

And there was another article that I read that Andrew Jans, his unfortunately unsuccessful opponent in the last race, was saying that he was saying that every time that he announces one of these things, just like you said, it's publicity for him. And then he gets all of this money from the conservatives in his district that are, you know, buying into this narrative that he's getting attacked from all these different people. And then he can really just, if you solicit that money, not necessarily under the explicit guys that it's because of lawsuits or something, then you could just use that money however you want. Yeah, he can say, help us defeat these by donating to my political campaign.

And as long as you spell it out that way and say this isn't for legal fees, then it's all above board. But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if that's another unintended benefit from this or excuse me intended benefit of this is that well, you know, every time I do this, I make another 100,000 indonations from Republicans in my district. So that's another way for him to make money that way. Totally. And then when you talk about him just quickly withdrawing a lawsuit, then that makes sense

for that theory because all he really needs, similar to the Biden Biden shit is the announcement of just the announcement of the law through yeah Exactly and then people are like oh no, and then get money. I need to help out my poor friend farmer Devon newness 174 thousand dollars. That's how much house reps make yep. It's pretty chill. Yeah, it's not bad. Yeah Gonna run for aphistor You have to win every two years. What a great get rich quick scheme The top part of my get rich low scheme Alright, well you guys ready for sabotage. Yeah Alright, so as I said, the prosecutors have asked the court to remand love Parnas for lying about his $1 million payment in the Southern District of New York that he received

from Russia with love, which incidentally is our theme music. So that's happening. Russia's funding, the Ukraine shake down, makes sense. I mean, that's, it seems like all Russian idea. And in Dr. Hill testified that this is all Russian, these are Russian talking points that are being spread by Republicans. Also, federal prosecutors are looking into partisan fruman and they're now focusing more on NAFTA gas. As we know, we've reported on this the last couple times they've been looking at some of the like the CEO and then this other guy, they questioned who they wanted to replace, the CEO. And NAFTA gas is Ukrainian oil and gas company, which this indicates that federal prosecutors

federal prosecutors have said this indicates they could be looking into bribery charges in the efforts by Giuliani, partisan, fruim and to replace their CEO with a friendly executive that could help their business prospects. The law, called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, is written for fucking Giuliani. That's what it was written for. And it basically, it prohibits a US company or individual from giving anything of value

to a foreign official in order to obtain a retained business. And that's exactly what Rudy was doing, as part of his firm and himself. So he's doubly in trouble. The sequence of events surrounding NAFTA gas appears to meet many of the elements necessary for a foreign bribery charge according to former federal prosecutors. Quote, at any time, or excuse me, any time you have some international business angle, thoughts understandably turned to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act says Harry Sandek,

a former prosecutor in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office So that's so we kind of knew that they were investigating the optic aspect now prosecutors are coming out and saying this could mean They're looking into bribery charges that it meets all the checks all the boxes for for bribery under Foreign Corrupt Practices Act so keep that in mind and are you ready to play the fantasy indictment league? Yes that in mind and are you ready to play the fantasy indictment league? Yes. I'm gonna be a pilot! No way, it's gonna be okay. I'm gonna! I'm gonna!

I'm gonna! And I heard! I'm gonna be a pilot! Hold it! It can't, it's gonna be okay. Just calm down. I can't calm down, I'm gonna be a pilot! Okay I get to go first, I wasn't here last week.

Yay. And you know, you know what I'm saying. Yep. Juliani. Yep. Alright, I'm going to do, Julie Annie. Yep. All right. I'm going to do since Parnis is apparently a liar now. Just going to do superseding Parnis.

All right. I'll do a superseding Frumen. Are you allowed to also do pleadial Parnis? Hold on. Which one of you did which? Oh, I did superseding Parnis. And I did superseding Frumen. And yeah, I mean, if you want to take up a spot on your team. Yeah. To do a

Frueman plea agreement or a Parnas plea agreement. A Parnas plea agreement. Yeah. I don't know. They'll give him one. I know. I don't know either. That's why I just put the superseding Parnas. But men, I'm like, but I'm going to be so upset with myself. If they agree to me. Yeah. Do I want both or what? Yes, I want both. Please. Yeah. Also a plea plea deal Parnas. Parnas. Yeah. You've got superseding both please. Yeah, also plea plea deal for Parnis. Parnis. You've got superseding and plea. Yeah. Covering your bases. Um, um isn't going to be able to do any indictments until he gets his stuff in March or June. March, sometimes we march in June. So I'm going to say point, Trump inaugural. All right. Because Tish is looking into that. And his James.

And then I will do Tom Barich. Yeah. Are you saying, sorry, Trump inaugural, not Trump, not Tromborg. Yeah, yeah. Yes, totally. And then you're doing Barric. Yes, ma'am. I'm gonna do Broidy. I'm gonna bring back Broidy. See, I'm going to do it somewhere for you.

Wait, two more for you. Two more for you. Okay, I will do a... Hmm. Hmm. I'm gonna bring Russia back into the mix with a rando Russian. Oh nice. I don't think any Russians are gonna get indicted by Bill Barr until After the mess is over, but that'd be cool. Yeah. Oh, who's gonna my last one? Let's give you chow. Don't pick my last one.

Pop it up. I already went to jail. I just wanted to go again. I know. I think you're running for office still, isn't it? Yes. Is you running for Mike Levins seat? I don't know. I think it's an orange county seat, I think yeah yeah gross yeah let's go with jizz lane oh yep where she been you know hiding out got who knows that is the biggest question probably vocal reton that just seems like where they Alright, let's do... Hmm... I'll do, I guess. You know what? I want to do the fucking NRA. Nice. Do it. See ya.

Alright, that's how we play fantasy and dimelie. We will be right back with the interview with Maya Wiley, so stick around. Hey everybody, it's A.G. and this segment of Mola She Wrote is brought to you by SkillShare. Every time I go on Twitter or debate a flatterer, it reminds me that lifelong learning is very important. So, no matter how old we are, we can still continually learn and grow and develop new skills. That's why I love SkillShare. They make it really easy for me because I'm kind of a scaredy cat.

There are an online learning community with amazing classes covering a wide array of creative and entrepreneurial skills. With SkillShare, you'll get unlimited access to thousands of classes with everything from graphic design and photography to illustration and classes on brand building, creating online shops and producing viral content. That's a really good class. I took that one. Skillshare helps you unlock styles and strategies today's creators need to know and allows you to share and collaborate with growing community, a growing community of over 7 million creators. That's so huge. Skillshare believes the best way to learn is by putting your skills to use, so every class has a project that

lets you practice and get feedback. I love that with Skillshare. You get to create projects you're proud to share through classes that include prompts and resources. Whether you're returning to a long time passion project or challenging yourself to get outside of your comfort zone, which is me, or simply exploring something new, Skillshare has classes for you. The class I'm excited to take now is in 3D printing. I've always been really fascinated by 3D printing. So, join the millions of students already learning on Skillshare today with a free special offer just for our listeners.

Get two months of Skillshare for free. That's right, access to their huge catalogs, Skillshare is offering Mollership Written listeners two months of unlimited access. It's 25,000 classes or so, and you get access to that for two months for free. To sign up, go to Skillshare.com slash AG. Again, that skillshare.com slash AG to start your two months now. One more time, skillshare.com slash AG.

You'll be glad you did. And joining us today for the interview is NBC News and MSNBC Legal Analyst and American Civil Rights Activist, Maya Wiley. Welcome to Mollershi Road. Thank you, it's a pleasure to be here. I am so excited to speak with you. We've had many of your colleagues on, including Joyce Vance, and Barb McQuade, Katie Fang, Sam Vinnigrad, Aasha Rangapa. We finally got to meet you at Politicon this year, so it's a real honor to be able to speak with you because you're somewhat

of a celebrity with our listeners because of your infamous interaction with Mr. Sam Nunberg. Oh, well, I am just pleased to be here. And it was a great pleasure to spend some time with you at Politicon. Thank you. Same. So I wanted to ask your opinion on impeachment going forward. Now that we know we voted on the two articles in the judiciary, and now that we know we will not get Trump's tax information, at least from Mazar's and Deutsche Bank until the summer in the Supreme Court, maybe a little bit earlier, but that's sort of what everyone's saying is June, July timeframe.

Lots of people are eager now to get the articles of impeachment to the full house for a vote and then on to the Senate, but summer saying we should hold off or not send them to the Senate at all. What would be the implications on that? What are your thoughts on that? First of all, I have to say it's a fascinating discussion and debate. I think people are largely making very thoughtful, raising very thoughtful questions, so I just want to say that at the outset. First of all, I would separate out the tax return issue from the impeachment proceedings for now.

I understand why people put those two together, but they really shouldn't be put together. And the reason I say that is, the assumption is just getting the tax returns, the financial information itself will provide some smoking gun, and I think that's a mistake to make that assumption. Generally speaking, the way investigations work around financial arrangements, it actually takes a lot of time to dig underneath the numbers and figure out what they mean, let

alone determine whether there's another impeachable offense there. I'm not suggesting there's not a lot of smoke. And certainly Congress should be getting those documents. I don't think there's any question of that. I'm hopeful the Supreme Court will come out with the right ruling. But I do think it's the congressional oversight authority on many of the investigations that are ongoing.

It's not, it's financial transactions are only one of them, right? And Adam Schiff has said he's going to continue to be investigating. I think all of that is appropriate. So that's, I would separate it out from the issues. We have it hand because remember, rightly, I think the Democrats have said they're focusing

on the abuse of power around our elections and our national security and including obstruction of Congress related to that. I think that is right and I think it is right because Donald Trump has demonstrated one that his campaign was completely willing to get whatever it could from foreign governments and the form of Russia as we know from the Muelleruller report put aside whether not muller could prove conspiracy that it was very clear in the report and muller was very clear about the regular contacts and donald trump himself said he didn't see

anything wrong with it now once we have the muller report out once robbert muller comes and testifies the congress it is the very next day that he has the call with the cranium president of very next day asking for a favor and then in october when that the word full blown in impeachment inquiry mode he publicly says i think china should investigate joe by and and and says that you know he's got power in trade talks meaning using the powers of the presidency

for his own political gain so i think he has made very clear that he is not going to stop and that it's in fact going to be the very same conduct you know that the issue of the senate i i think people who are saying hold off not going to stop and that it's in fact going to be the very same conduct. You know the issue of the Senate, I think people who are saying hold off in part are hoping that there's something that's going to make this a less partisan process and one that is focused on fact. I've seen no evidence of that and I think it's critically important that the process happened. I think there are some interesting arguments

about how Democrats might use the fact that Mitch McConnell has made these incredibly disturbing statements about essentially no sunlight between him and creating an impeachment trial and the Trump White House. That's very disturbing, but there may be ways for them to think about how they use this leverage for creating a much more fair and constitutional trial process. But I don't, I think that time does matter

in the sense that the elections matter, and the more that we can do to make it clear that this is about the Constitution, this is about loyalty Constitution, this is about loyalty to the United States and that there is sufficient evidence here. The other investigations are going to continue to go on in any event, and I think it's important to our democratic process that they go on in any event. Yeah, and I think I was just listening to Asha Rangapa was on topic with Renato Marriotti, and

was saying that another downside of that is withholding the articles from the Senate could give Trump a due process defense in the matter. And we definitely don't want to feed the trolls as it were. Right. Well, and I think that's right. I think there are many ways in which also the Republicans can spin, you know, the Democrats playing with the process in a way that feels like a manipulation to the American public. I think that's dangerous. I think when Nancy Pelosi came out last week and said, I'm not whipping my members.

People have to vote their conscience. People have to look at the not, people have to vote their conscious. People have to look at the facts, and they have to vote their conscience. I think that is the right principle position to take, and I do think our integrity matters in terms of our process. So in that sense, there should be agreement between Democrats and Republicans about the integrity of the process because it is enshrined in the constitution and if anything i think with this impeachment trial what is what has been on trial is the constitution itself and that's a shame

and you had briefly touched on mcconald saying he would be working with the white house at every step of the senate trial and of course we know what lindsay recently said, said he's not even trying to pretend to be a fair juror, not even trying to hide it. Despite during the Clinton impeachment asking for all of the members just to listen and be open-minded, I mean, it's the height of hypocrisy. It really is. And I'm wondering, how does that have any legal impact on this procedure? I mean, we have so few impeachment trials to go by historically.

But I mean, how does Chief Justice Roberts swear in Lindsey Graham knowing that he said that? I mean, it just doesn't seem feasible. How could the Democrats, I mean, what could the Democrats do? What kind of case could they make about that kind of a statement? Well, the case that the Democrats can make is in the court of public opinion. There is no legal process here. And, you know, Justice Roberts doesn't have the power to do anything

about that statement. He can only administer the oath. And that is because the founders placed the sole power of impeachment and even how the process would work in the case of trial, in the hands of the Senate. And it uses the word for those listeners who watched the impeachment hearings closely when the Constitutional Law Scholars testified before the House Judiciary Committee. I think it was Professor Gephardt kept making this point that the Constitution uses the word soul, SOLE Congress. The House has the soul authority over articles of impeachment and deciding whether to charge the president and essentially within peach and bull offenses. And the Senate has the sole power to determine whether a conviction or a quiddle

and then if conviction whether or not to remove. And so those, that really means that the judiciary does not have a role. And I think the reason for that, and the only reason that Chief Justice has a role, in this case, for impeachment of a president, that Chief Justice does not have a role if we're impeaching judges.

It's because the vice president can't serve. Because the vice president would have a vested interest in the outcome. So the presiding officer is really making evidentiary rulings and probably will not make a lot of those if history is our is our lesson. It's really the senators themselves that decide pretty much everything. And I think that was something that Alexander Hamilton actually worried about in the Federalist papers. He talked about the fact that they knew they were creating a system that was political and

that would be driven by politics, right, because the decision would be with elected members of Congress, but he was very explicit about feeling that placing the trial and conviction in the Senate, which would be the more rational, the more sober part of Congress, compared to the House, was part of their way of thinking that they were creating enough of a balance that senators would do the right thing and i think what lindsay gram and what michael kennel have done is spat on the federalist papers i mean that's the only way i can they finding fathers to be rolling over in their graves if they

heard these comments based on what we saw that they wrote about what this meant to our Constitution. Yeah, it's a lot of heavy stuff. And I mean, the ultimate fact of the matter is it will play out how it plays out, and we will be witnesses to it. And real quick, before I let you go,

you recently wrote a piece, maybe not real quick, but because it's pretty witty, but you wrote a piece on why you think Bill Barr has earned an impeachment inquiry himself. There's been a lot of our listeners asking, like, who holds Bill Barr responsible if somebody wants to do? Now, impeachment, as we know, is not a criminal proceeding. It's a political proceeding. But, you know, and we can talk about that, but also just wondering who holds him, if somebody needs to make a criminal referral against Bill

Barr, who does that and where does it go? So it seems like impeachment is probably the only remedy. What say you? Well, I, is really interesting question. First of all, let me say, I think he's earned an impeachment and impeachment inquiry. I don't know whether he's committed a crime. And I, I say that because the issue is an investigation. I mean, impeachment inquiry i don't know whether he's committed a crime and i i say that because the issue is an investigation and i mean impeachment inquiry creates the investigation uh... in congress

and if he had if there was evidence that sufficient uh... to show that he committed a crime you know there would with lots of things can happen but he clearly is not above the law and whether it's a violation of state laws. Obviously, it would be, you know, district attorneys are state proceeding. In the context of the federal government, we would expect this, he'd be recused, obviously,

from any investigation, and there would be an investigation by, so there would still be an investigation, but he would not have the power to intervene in it in any way. I think the issue here is not whether enough we have sufficient evidence to say he should be criminally investigated. It's that as a member, as a cabinet member, as someone who has a constitutional obligation to uphold the constitution of the United States and the laws of the land that his literally spinning, you know, started, of course, with him spinning the Mueller report and spinning it in a way that that in and of itself may not have been impeachable, but certainly as we heard from Robert Mueller that he did have concerns about how Bill Barr was summarizing his findings. We know that I won't go through that whole list, but if he fasts forward, you know, his

behavior in undermining the reputation of the FBI and in in personally going after what have been debunked conspiracy theories using the power of the office. Potentially we don't know but there was there was his involvement in what his involvement was in withholding the whistleblower complaint from Congress which was an extraordinary decision on the part of the Justice Department. And from some of the news reporting, there seemed to be indication that he had involvement in that decision. How much I don't know whether it was inappropriate, I don't know. But that is pretty dramatic in and of itself.

And then he literally appears to be going on a Donald Trump defense investigation spree, including when we have an independent, the inspector general doing the job of determining whether there had been any political bias in the FBI launching the Russia probe in the first place and whether or not it was quote unquote spying on the Trump campaign. I mean, we were all shocked when, in addition to having IG and Inspector General examining that, he then goes and creates another investigation process by appointing Mr. Durham, the US Attorney, from Connecticut to investigate.

And most recently, he's just, I wrote that piece before Bill Barr came out, challenged the findings of a lengthy investigation by the Inspector General, an investigation in which he interviewed 170 witnesses, reviewed, I think, over a million documents, it has a reputation of being extremely above board and says he found no evidence of any political bias in the inception of the FBI's investigation into Russia interference, which we know has been found to be the case, both by the intelligence community but also by the Robert Mueller report. It's astounding and it makes very clear that he is using his powers of office in a way that is

personally benefiting Donald Trump. That is not the job of an attorney general. That is not his job and it has been significant enough that I think it merits what is very rare in our history, which is a congressional inquiry into whether he himself has earned impeachment. If, if, if in that process, there's also evidence that some of that conduct was criminal, not only is that grounds for impeachment, they can refer that to the FBI for investigation. So I am not saying that he has committed a crime, but remember impeachment is not triggered only by crime. It is triggered by abuse of the office, abuse of the oath, abuse of the role that is significant

enough to merit removal. Yeah, 100 percent. And even recently, more recently, that I think he drew that arbitrary line. There was a FOIA request for communications about Ukraine and that whole scheme. And Department of Justice, in the middle of the impeachment markup hearings released I think 147 pages of communications all redacted. And that just seems a defiance of court order as these are, you know, I'm assuming on classified we don't know what's behind those redactions.

I mean, we can guess, but you know, and knowing that for instance, Mike Pence's call, September 18th call, Zelensky is not classified or, you know, for national security reasons, but for probably hiding a crime or embarrassing political information. So, I mean, it just keeps happening and just goes beyond anything we've ever seen. And they've given them till January 8th now, I think, to release these documents and do a broader release of other communications between Pompeo and Giuliani, at least in the State Department. But it's just seems like just a blatant defiance of a court order, which is sort of something that the Trump administration so far has been able to avoid doing.

But I think we're getting down to the end here when these court orders are going to force the release of some of these things and it just seems like we're going to continue to get stonewalling from the Justice Department and the White House. Yeah, and I think this goes exactly to the second article of impeachment, right, which is an obstruction of Congress. And it's not the only instance because, of course, you know, we had evidence of obstruction of justice from the Trump White House, specifically from Donald Trump himself in the Mueller report and several of those instances, Robert Mueller finding substantial evidence of obstruction of justice.

And this is part and parcel of that same pattern, except that, remember Don McGann drew the line. Don McGann actually comes out in the Mueller report as the White House counsel not willing to violate the law or take direction he believes is inappropriate from the president of the United States even though he was appointed by him and that is exactly what we expect from public servants. It does not appear to be what we're getting from bill bar and or or frankly from other members of that white house uh... cabinet or senior

advisors i'm still shocked that john boltin has refused to do the right thing here me and i think i think that shocked in that i don't understand what is self interest are not doing the right thing but that's why doing the right thing is about the moral character of the person. You put your self-interest behind the interests of the country that you have sworn to serve.

John Bolton took the note. John Bolton, I believe, is someone who does care about the national security of the country. And certainly the information we have coming out of the impeachment process suggests that there is nothing that prevents him from testifying before Congress or being deposed. And it's just probably the most disheartening thing to me is that we see evidence of people who have been appointed by the Donald Trump trying to do the right thing and stopping

short when it comes to congressional oversight power. That goes directly to the separation of powers and the branches of our government. And that is a central concept to our democracy. It is exactly how the founding fathers kept us from creating a monarchy, except we now have a conspiracy, I think, is the only way to think about it. A conspiracy for making the presidency of the United States so powerful that Congress becomes simply a bully pulpit for having shouting matches rather than an oversight authority that's based on fact and that can get access to information that it needs to do the work

of the American people. And I just think that's shocking. Yeah, it definitely is. And you know, you mentioned Mueller was alluded to in the articles of impeachment, each one at least implied into the totality of the evidence and pattern of behavior to develop pattern of behavior. And I suspect we'll see an explanation, a more detailed explanation of that,

implied totality of the evidence in the report that's due out today, which is Sunday by midnight from the House stems. So I think they'll go into a little more detail. But I think the overarching theme is the totality of evidence and the pattern of behavior, at least as far as the impeachment goes. Absolutely. I agree with you. All right. Well, thank you so much for spending some time with us today. NBC News and MSNBC Legal Analyst, Maya Wiley. Thank you so much. Thank you, it was a pleasure. All right everybody, that's our show.

Thank you so much for being with us this weekend, pre-impeachment weekend, provided they vote on articles which I am assuming they will this week, although we've had a couple of surprises. So you never know. So we're just going to, I think Maddo said Friday night, she's like, humility, we don't know what's happening. You know, she's 100% right, I'm just going to wait to seedo said Friday night. She's like humility. We don't know what's happening You know, she's a hundred percent right I'm just gonna wait to see what happens and then tell you about it. Although I do like putting beans on things But you know with the understanding that it's beans. Yeah

To correct myself from earlier in terms of the impeachment rallies I found this there's rallies you can sign up for Tuesday like you said Tuesday to December 17 Then you can sign up at impeach dot org impeach, December 17, then you can sign up at impige.org Impige.org. Yes. Cool. Cool. Any final thoughts? No, not for me. Yeah, at this moment in time. Any for me? No. Just thanks all for listening. Yeah, appreciate it. And again, if you have any corrections for us, I forgot to tell you after corrections, just go to mullershiroat.com, contact select corrections and make us a compliment sandwich,

and we will read it out on the air unless you ask us not to. And we will be doing a separate bonus episodes for all the fun sort of non-political corrections that we have for our patrons. Yeah, and the non-political corrections that we did get our patrons. Yeah, and the nonpolitical corrections that we did get your compliments and your compliments and images are very sweet, so thank you. Yes, thank you. They make us very happy. Yay. All right, that's it.

Everyone, please take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. I've been AG. I've been Jordan Coburn. I've been a mandorida. And this is Mollarshi Road. Mollarshi Road is executive produced and directed by A.G. and Jordan Coburn with engineering and editing by Mackenzie Mazell and Starburn's industries.

Our marketing manager, production and social media direction is by Amanda Reader, fact checking your research by A.G., Jordan Coburn and Amanda Reader, and our knowledgeable listeners. Our web design and branding are by Joao Reader with Moxie Design Studios and our website is mullersirob.com. Season 4 of How We Win Is Here For the past four years we've been making history in critical elections all over the country and last year we made history again by expanding our majority in the Senate, eating election denying Republicans and crucial state house races, and fighting

back a non-existent red wave. But the Magga Republicans who plotted and pardoned the attempted overthrow of our government now control the House, thanks to gerrymandered maps and repressive anti-voter laws and the chaotic Spectacle we've already seen shows us just how far they will go to seize power dismantle our government and take away our freedoms So the official podcast of the persistence is back with season four There's so much more important work ahead of us to fight for equity, justice, and our very democracy itself.

We'll take you behind the lines and inside the rooms where it happens, with strategy and inspiration from progressive change makers all over the country. And we'll dig deep into the weekly news that matters most and what you can do about it, with messaging and communications expert co-founder of Way to Win, and our new co-host, Jennifer Fernandez-Ancona. So join Steve and I every Wednesday for your weekly dose of inspiration, action, and hope. I'm Steve Pearson. And I'm Jennifer Fernandez-Ancona.

And this is How We Win. And this is how we win.