Jack - Tamper, Tamper (feat. Peter Strozk)

Episode Date: July 3, 2022

This week in news stemming from Mueller world: Allison talks with Pete Strozk about the pattern of witness tampering, intimidation, and obstruction of justice from Trumpworld; Google allowed a sanctioned Russian advertising company to harvest user data; plus the Fantasy Indictment League.Follow AG on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gill https://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://dailybeans.supercast.tech/Orhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansHow We Win Fundswingleft.org/fundraise/howwewinPromo Codes:Thank you Credit Karma. Head to creditkarma.com/loanoffers to see personalized offers.

Hi, I'm Harry Lickman, host of Talking Feds. Around table, the brings together prominent figures from government law and journalism for a dynamic discussion of the most important topics of the day. Each Monday, I'm joined by a slate of Feds favorites at new voices to break down the headlines and give the insider's view of what's going on in Washington and beyond. Plus, side bars explaining important legal concepts read by your favorite celebrities. Find Talking Fedswear every you get your podcasts. Please join me in thanking Credit Karma for supporting Muller She Wrote.

Credit Karma, apply with more confidence today. Ready to apply? Head to creditcarma.com slash loan offers to see personalized offers. Hey all, this is Glenn Kirschner and and you're listening to Mueller She wrote. ["Muller She Wrote"] So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what I said. That's obviously what our position is.

I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time, a true, in that campaign, and I didn't have, and I have communications with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin for I have nothing to do with Putin? I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about a mother

than he will respect me. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. So, it is political. You're a communist! No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring. Like all members of the oldest profession I'm a capitalist. Hello and welcome to Muller She Wrote. I'm your host A.G. Allison Gill. We have a great show today. I'm feeling better. My voice is still a little bit messed up, so I do apologize for that. But I do have a special surprise. I'll be speaking with Pete Struck later in

the show about witness intimidation and witness tampering with regards to the recent testimony of Mark Meadows' aid Cassidy Hutchinson, and how that relates to the obstruction of justice investigation during the Mueller probe. And, of course, we'll have the fantasy indictment, League. There's also a story about Google allowing a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data, our user data, but for months. It is a bombshell story riding under the radar, and that's where I'd like to start today with just the facts. All right, this is from Craig Silverman at ProPublica. If you have a chance, head to ProPublica,

toss them a couple of bucks. Their reporting is incredible. And Craig Silverman says, the day after Russia's February invasion of Ukraine, that would be February 25th, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner sent a letter to Google, warning it could be on alert for exploitation of your platform by Russia and Russian linked entities. And calling on the company to audit its advertising business's compliance with our own economic sanctions on Russia. But as recently as June 23rd, that's a week, just over a week ago. Google was sharing potentially sensitive user data with a sanctioned Russian ad tech company owned by Russia's largest state

bank. That's according to new reports provided to pro-publica. Google allowed RU Target, a Russian company that helps brands and agencies buy digital ads to access and store data about people browsing websites and apps in Ukraine and other parts of the world according to research from digital ad analysis firm, Adelidics. Adelidics identified close to 700 examples of RU target, receiving user data from Google after the company was added to the Treasury list of sanction entities, OFEC, on February 24. The data sharing between Google and RU target stopped four months later on June 23rd,

the day pro-publica contacted Google about the activity. Hats off to pro-publica. RU target, which also operates under the name segmento, is owned by spur bank. We've heard of this a million times, a Russian state bank, that the treasury describes as uniquely important to the country's economy when it hit the lender with initial sanctions. Our U-target was later listed in an April 6 Treasury announcement that imposed full blocking sanctions on spur bank and other Russian entities and people. The sanctions mean US individuals and entities are not supposed to conduct business with

our U-target or spur bank. are not supposed to conduct business with RU Target or Spur Bank. Of political concern, the analysis showed that Google shared data with RU Target about users browsing websites based in Ukraine. This means Google may have turned over such critical information as unique mobile phone IDs, IP addresses, location information, and details about users' interests and online activity. Data that US Senators and experts say could be used by Russian military and intelligence services

to track people or zero in on locations of interest. Now last April, a bipartisan group of US senators sent a letter to Google and other major ad tech companies warning of the national security implications of data shared as part of the digital ad buying process. They say this user data quote would be a gold mine for foreign intelligence services security implications of data shared as part of the digital ad buying process. They say this user data quote would be a gold mine for foreign intelligence services that could exploit it to inform and supercharge hacking, blackmail, and influence campaigns.

Google spokesperson Michael Asaman said that the company blocked our U-target from using its ad products in March, and that our U-target has not purchased ads directly via Google since then. Oh, that makes me feel so much better, Mike. He acknowledged the Russian company was still receiving user and buying data from Google before being all alerted by ProPublica and Adelidics. They had no idea, apparently.

Quote, Google is committed to complying with all the like, and then, and then, and then, whatever. We've received the entities and question and have taken appropriate enforcement action beyond the measures we took the blood to block them from this year. But you know what? Tired of hearing about it. You left it on as long as it made you money. Ackerman says this action includes not only preventing RU target from further accessing user data, but from purchasing ads through third parties in Russia that may not be sanctioned. He declined to say whether RU target had purchased ads via Google systems using such third parties.

And he did not comment on whether data about Ukrainians had been shared with Russia with RU target. Christoph Franasek, who runs Adelidix, and authored this report, said our U-target's ability to access and store user data from Google, could open the door to serious potential abuse. Do the Russians have a history of mining data and abusing it? Do they? I can't remember.

There's a thing. There was something, some sort of investigation. Now quote, for all we know, they're taking the data and combining it with 20 other data sources they got from God knows where he says, if our U targets other data partners included the Russian government or intelligence or cyber criminals is a huge danger. In a statement to pro-publica, Warner, a Virginia Democrat, the senator, called Google's failure to sever its relationship with RU target, alarming, quote, all companies have a responsibility to ensure they're not helping to fund, or even inadvertently support Vladimir

Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Hearing that an American company, baby sharing user data with a Russian company owned by a sanctioned state-owned bank no less is incredibly alarming and frankly disappointing. I urge all companies to examine their business operations from top to bottom to ensure that they are not supporting Putin's war in any way." So Google's initial failure to enforce sanctions on RU target. It highlights how money and data can flow through its market leading digital advertising systems with little oversight or accountability. An April report from Adelidics showed that Google had continued serving ads on Russian websites that had been on the Treasury sanctions list for years. In June, ProPublica reported that Google helped place and earned money from more than 100 million gun ads, despite the company's strong public stance

against accepting such ads. The findings about our U-target also come as Google and other tech companies face intense scrutiny from legislators about their handling of personal data. Now, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, Democrat who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized Google for its failure last year to provide him and his colleagues, with a list of the foreign owned companies it shares ad data with. Quote, Google is refused to disclose to senators whether its ad network makes Americans data available to foreign companies in Russia, China, and other high-risk countries.

This was a statement he said he made to pro-publica. He went on to say, it's time for Congress to act and pass my bipartisan bill the Protecting Americans Data from Foreign Surveillance Act, which would force Google and other networks to radically change how they do business and ensure unfriendly foreign governments don't have unfettered access to American sensitive information. Now, widening his colleagues introduced the bipartisan bill

last week to prevent sensitive data about Americans from being sold or transferred to high-risk foreign countries. Wyden and a different group of Senate colleagues also sent a letter to the FTC, the chair at Lena Kahn last week asking her to investigate Google and Apple for enabling mobile advertising IDs and cell phones. These unique IDs can be combined with other data to personally identify you. Wyden's letter cited mobile IDs as one way that Google and Apple transformed online advertising into an intense system of surveillance

that incentivizes and facilitates the unrestrained collection and constant sale of American's personal data. Accommod of Google said that the mobile advertising ID was created to give users control and privacy, and that Google does not allow the sale of user data. Quote, the advertising ID was created to give users more control and provide developers with a more private way to effectively monetize their app.

Additionally, he said, Google Play has policies in place that prohibit using this data for purposes other than advertising and user analytics. Also, because you say, you can't use this for bad stuff, but go ahead and have it, everything's going to be fine. At the heart of both senators' concerns and the analytics report is the data collected on global internet users that gets passed between companies

as part of the digital ad buying process. This treasure trove of information can include a person's unique mobile ID, IP address, location information, and browsing habits. When passed between companies to facilitate ad buying, the trove is called BIDStreme data. It's essential to the roughly half a trillion dollar digital ad industry that's dominated by Google. That's why they say there's nothing to see here. Half a trillion dollars. Many digital ads are placed as a result of real-time auctions in which the seller of ad space and ad space such as a website is connected with a potential buyer like a brand and agencies. An auction starts when a user visits a website or an app, and within milliseconds data collected

about that user is shared with potential ad buyers to help them decide whether to bid to show an ad to the user. In real time, regardless of whether they bid or not ad buying platforms like RU Target receive and store that bid stream data, helping them automate the amassing of rich repositories of data over time. The auction process is run by ad exchanges. They connect buyers and sellers and facilitate the sharing of bid stream data between them and conjunction with a process called cookie syncing Google operates the world's largest ad exchange and RU target is one of many companies that shares Bidstream data with The more RU target connects with ad exchanges like Google the more information it can gather and combine with data collected from other online and offline sources

Justin Sherman a fellow at Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy, who runs a project focused on data brokers, said bid stream data is largely unregulated that can be highly sensitive, even if it doesn't include personal information like names or emails. He says, quote, there's a growing attention to the ways in which our data ecosystem and our ecosystem of data brokers and advertisers gives away or sends or sells highly sensitive information on Americans to foreign entities. There is also a concern about foreign entities elicitly accessing that information. Oh, but the Google science guy said they put a warning on there that says, please don't

do that. So it's all safe, I'm sure. Fears over the ill usage of the information led Warner, widening and four colleagues to ask Google and six other addicts changes in April of 2021 to list the domestic and foreign partners they share Bidstream data with in the past three years. They warned that this data could have serious implications for national security. Quote, few Americans realize that some auction participants are

siphoning off and storing Bidstream data to compile exhaustive dossiers about them. In turn, these dossiers are being openly sold to anyone with a credit card, including to hedge funds, political campaigns, and even to governments. That was a letter they wrote to AT&T index exchange Google Magnite, OpenX, Pubmatic, Twitter, and Verizon. Google responded a few weeks later, but refused to list the companies it shares Bidstream Data with citing non-disclosure obligations.

For Nazx Research, the guy who wrote this report, reveals concerns about the accuracy of Google's response. He identified eight pages on Google's support website that lists hundreds of foreign and domestic companies that are eligible to receive Bidstream Data from it. One list contains over 300 companies, of which 19 are Chinese owned or headquartered in 16 are based in Russia, including our U-target. Fernazac also found that some of these companies publicly disclosed their relationship with Google,

and, as reported by Vice, some of the Google's competitors disclosed to the senators that foreign partners they share data with. This raises questions as to what Google was referring to when it said non-disclosure obligations prevent it from naming its partners. Quote, Google was publicizing on its own website. List of foreign partners months before they told the senators they couldn't share the information. The user data shared by Google with RUTarget and other potential bidders is drawn from millions

of websites and apps that rely on the Silicon Valley giant to help them earn money from ads. And many would likely be surprised to learn that a sanctioned Russian ad company was until two weeks ago able to harvest information about their visitors. Because of its relationship with Google, RU Target is publicly listed as a recipient of user data by major publishers, including Reuters, ESPN. That means, are you target can receive data from these companies about the millions of people who visit their online properties each month? Like other publishers, ESPN and Reuters list, are you target as a recipient of user data in cookie consent pop-ups, shown to users browsing their sites from the EU and other jurisdictions with data privacy laws that require those disclosures. Guess who doesn't?

Ding, ding, ding. A spokesperson for Reuters said the company shows its consent pop-up, including RU Target, comes from a list of vendors provided by Google. ESPN did not respond to requests for comment. RU Target's website also lists an impressive group of global brands, among its clients, including Proctor and Gamble, Levi's, Mazda, Mastercard, Hyundai, PayPal, and Pfizer. This suggests the companies have worked with RUTarget to purchase ads, likely in an effort to target Russian speaking audiences. A spokesperson for Pfizer said the company is not currently working with RUTarget, quote, following investigations with colleagues, we've established we do not have any current working relationships with the organization you mentioned and have

no recent record of any relationship. That's a Pfizer spokesperson. The remaining companies did not respond to a request for comment. It's frightening. Please donate to ProPublica when you get a chance to ask them a couple bucks. We'll be right back with Pete Struck and one of the aspects of the incredible testimony provided by Cassidy Hutchinson last week. Stay with us.

Hey everybody, it's aging. Paying down debt can be stressful, especially when you need to keep track of multiple monthly payment dates. That debt can hang over your head and be a continuous, dark cloud that just doesn't go away. If you're tired of juggling due dates and paying outrageous interest rates, consolidating

with a personal loan could be your answer. That way you'll just have one due date a month, and credit card may help you find the best option for you. Credit card is convenient and free. It costs nothing to compare rates, and see your new monthly low payment, and browsing loan offers doesn't trigger a hard full on your credit ear. There's no risk to see if consolidating high interest credit card debt would save you time and money. Credit Karma even shows you your chances of being approved so you can apply with more confidence.

Credit Karma uses your credit data to find loan offers personalized just for you, so apply with more confidence today. Ready to apply? Head to creditcarma.com slash loan offers to see personalized offers. Again, go to creditcarma.com slash loan offers to see personalized offers. Again, go to creditcorma.com slash loan offers to find the loan for you. That's creditcorma.com slash loan offers. And joining us today, again, my friend, former FBI Special Agent, counterintelligence expert, awesome dude, all around Pete's Drock High Pete. Hey, Allison, how are you? I'm okay today,

thank you. I wanted to talk to you because as you knowpeat. Hey, Allison, how are you? I'm okay today, thank you. I wanted to talk to you because, as you know, for the last few months, we've been watching this, kind of watching the Department of Justice and what they're doing with the 16th investigation. And we've been seeing publicly for the last month now or so what the committee is doing.

And you know, a dawn on me, I've got my giant molar report up there. And half of it was dedicated to an investigation into obstructing justice. And I said to myself, well, they've got to have an entire parallel obstructed of justice investigation going on with regards to January 6th, right? Right? I mean, right?

Because this is clearly sort of their MO. So let's talk a little bit about what's happened with the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony because I've reached a point where I'm just not gonna I don't even argue anymore online with people who don't believe her testimony and now but we've got some information coming out today through CNN that sources are saying oh this story's been circulating through through CNN that sources are saying, oh, this story's been circulating through, you know, the MPD for like a year. Everybody knows about it.

He lunged whether he grabbed the steering wheel or went for the clavicle, we don't know. But I would tend to believe her testimony over Ornato's given who he is and his loyalties any day. So can you talk a little bit about these messages she received, who she received among behalf, and if you think that her lawyers would have advised her to report this to the authorities?

So, that's a great question. There were two statements that I'm aware of, or two events, and they came up at the very end of her hearing. Liz Cheney brought them up, teased a little bit that they might be part of a pattern of behavior and didn't give any further information, but they were not attributed to her. And it came out after her testimony, in fact, both were to her. It appears one was a text message she received and one was her recounting about phone call or phone calls that she had had. And in both cases, the text message appears to be from an unidentified

person, obviously, that she knows, saying, hey, there's this person, which is being reported that is Meadows. He's aware that you're being, you know, that you're giving testimony tomorrow. No, no, no, that you're loyal and that you'll do the right thing. And words to that effect. And then the her recounting of the other phone calls are much more sort of direct. Like, you know, if you want to stay in good graces with Trump, you need to do the right thing, multiple reminders that he goes through and he reads everybody's testimony. So that there is a much more sort of explicit, do the quote unquote right thing to keep Trump happy. You know what it is. you know you're gonna make him upset

because he's gonna read everything and you know what happens if you make him upset. So that has a much more of an edge to it. And the reason that's important is that the crime that's implicated is found in titillate team. There are some non-criminal statutes, but 1512, which is interestingly enough, the same statute that is being used for like the oath keepers

and the proud boys for the complex conspiracy to interrupt the official proceeding of the certification of the vote. But in this case, it also is a statute that applies to witness tampering. And at the high end, it, you know, if you kill a witness, you know, that's got the heaviest hammer in that descends to threats of violence, and then you get to a point where you're attempting to corruptly influence somebody to not say something, to change their story, to withhold something. And it comes with a really big hit. Even, you know, the violent ones have even higher ones, but in this case, that nonviolent attempt

carries a 20 year maximum in jail, which is really, really substantial. And so for her, I think there's some question that there's been reporting like Elizabeth Farah who, you know, despite being a press spokesman for Trump, CNN in their new thrust for objective nonpartisan commentary, picked her up as one of their commentators, I think said that she had spoken personally with Hutchinson who had attorneys that were being provided by and paid for by Trump and folks around him and that she had come out of her initial or interview saying, hey, there's more material that I want to give.

And Alyssa Farah claims that she told her, I think, you know, hey, you need to find different counsel, which she did. And she went to, I think I know Jody Hunt was a senior lieutenant to Jeff Sessions and DOJ at a respected legitimate firm, not one of these crazy sort of surrounding the Trump orbit, back of less than less than stellar legal folks. These are legitimate attorneys. And my understanding is that after she changed attorneys, that's when they went in and had these,

I don't know whether she had three or four interviews, closed interviews with the committee, but after that change is when all this information came to life. Yeah, and I think the thing that first tipped me off was, you know, obviously going through the entire Mueller scenario with all of the obstruction therein. But when recently, when Donald was up on stage dangling pardons again, um, to, to potential January 6th folks, and then the pardon discussions coming up with a my on the pardons list and stuff like that, I'm like, that he did that. And it's in the,

in the Mueller report, the obstruction of justice volume two part, uh, that seems part and parcel to the way that he operates. And then of course this comes out. And I know we know that the Department of Justice is looking into whether or not Sidney Powell's pack, which is being investigated for defrauding funders, wire fraud, et cetera, possibly potentially, that she could be funding defense attorneys for the oath keepers, Stewart Rhodes included, who are all up on seditious conspiracy, and the people who are pleading not guilty are being paid for by Sidney Powell, their defense attorneys, or at least the DOJ was concerned about this, I'm sure

they know, because they've been investigating her pack for quite a while. And so it appears to me that this is a pattern, and I can't imagine that the Department of Justice wasn't for the DOJ to get them, put the screws to them with witness tampering to get them to roll on meadows and then use that to put the screws to meadows to roll up the chain. What are the downsides of, like if you know you've got witness tampering, but you're still in this giant other investigation that you're working on. What are the downsides to enditing fast on witness tampering without having the whole rest of the case figured out? Are there downsides? Like a lot of people are like,

why don't you just indict for this now and then supersede later? How's that work? I think you've got to get there first and I'm not convinced we're at witness tampering. I mean, part of it, when the one thing that it appears We have tangible evidence of is this text, right presumably that she had and showed them But if you read that whoever this person is is saying he knows your loyal and to do the right thing Metas is gonna say we'll do the right thing is of course on her tell the truth and on your your oath of office The really the ones that start getting into like no, you know, this is getting shady

or her recounting of conversation she had, probably not recorded, maybe they are, but that goes to this, there's the simmering tension, which is now, I think, in conflict between Congress and DOJ and the criminal prospect, having that out there in the hearing, it was great television. We're all like, oh my God, it's probably good politics, but it's really not good criminal investigative action. Because we're all watching it. Whoever this is, let's call them John Doe,

the intermediary, is also watching it. And so we see this one text. Now, if I'm an investigator, I'm sitting there going through all the concerns I just told you about. Well, it doesn't really say, make up a story or don't tell them about this. It just says, you're loyal and do the right thing.

Now, if I was able to go to unbeknownst to John Doe, Sapina, his phone records, get a search warrant for his emails, get a search warrant for his phone, and then unbeknownst to him, show up one morning, seize all that, I might get all the conversations that John Doe is having with Mark Meadows, Mark Meadows that's turning your everybody else where they are saying, you've got to stop her. Make sure she doesn't say it. Don't worry about some on top of it.

All the things that would get you that evidence to be able to charge obstruction might be there. But the problem is, because Liz Cheney throws it out and I was stunned, there's this new Arbrote Down. There's this New York Times article saying, federal prosecutors' quote, were just as astonished, unquote, as the rest of us watching this testimony. So the problem is, we're watching that testimony. Federal prosecutors apparently are astonished watching this testimony, but so is John Doe. And John Doe is going to say, God damn it. Run to his email, his phone, his signal account, his proton mail,

and wipe and delete everything there. So again, I get, you know, we're all wrapped up in how horrible this is, but if we're actually trying to resolve that through a criminal path, that's not the right way to do it. And it points to this sort of intransigence that appears to be between the committee not wanting to share on the transcripts of the interviews they've done with DOJ and the committee's frustrated with DOJ not moving fast enough. So at some point, you know, it highlights the point at the end of the day, the committee has a political end. DOJ has a criminal justice end, and those aren't always completely lied. Yeah, I mean, if I were the new attorneys for Ms. Hutchinson, and had found out that she was being, you know, contacted by people in Trump world. My first instinct would be go to the FBI, get this down on record, get the evidence before you go and tell everybody about it so that they have a chance to destroy it. Now, of course, DOJ can get stuff through a 27.03 order, right, without even having to tell

the person. We don't know what Department of Justice is doing, but, and I don't know how I feel about the reporting from Luke Broadwater and Mike Schmidt that they were blindsided by this. Who, who, which prosecutors, you know, why, why is there, why is this off the record? Why would the DOJ tell a reporter? We were just totally taken off guard. That would be stupid. I don't quite understand that particular story,

and I think that that'll flush out a little bit more over time. But this is where, this is the concern that we had going into this, isn't it, Pete, that what could be put out in public through public hearings if the Department of Justice doesn't know about it or hasn't gotten to that part yet could be damaging to potential prosecutions? Yeah, and I can't, again, going to the point of I can see if she was still with her Trump

paid for attorneys that either their lack of competence or their ultimate loyalty to Trump versus their client's interests might be pushing her away from this. But I think, again, having gone through myself as on both sides of the issue, as a when you're talking with your attorney, I think it's pretty clear is you, if you are a witness, if you have information, if you are a witness, if you have information, if you are involved in or in the periphery of potentially illegal things, there's a pretty clear hierarchy of what can hurt you and what you need to cooperate and protect yourself with. And at the top of that is DOJ. If there is a

criminal act or activity, you could be a witness, you might be a subject and if you're subject, they can put you in jail. So make sure you and your equities are protected and you are safe there. And then it kind of cascades down to, you know, maybe Congress wants to talk to you, maybe an IG wants to talk to you, maybe some state to you. The things that are people have an ability to compel you to talk or produce things, but they don't have the ability DOJ does to put you in jail. So I would have to believe, and I think it is reasonable to believe that

Cassie Hutchinson and her team have gone through all these, where do I have exposure? Where do I have hooks from all these different entities? And how do I best protect myself in advance when I'm trying to do? And again, at the top of that list is going to DOJ, saying, hey, here's this information, I don't know, it's been weird.

I haven't, I've seen mixed reporting about whether or not there has not been any sort of hint, which presumably come from returnaries that, yeah, we've talked to DOJ here before the grand jury. Nothing like that. But having said that, I can't imagine that any good attorney would look and say, okay, if you're going to go in and tell the committee on this, if you haven't talked to DOJ, you're going to have a request, they're going to be calling me probably that same day and saying,

we'd like to talk to you and or we're going to get you a grand jury speed and so which do you prefer. So if you haven't thought that through kind of looking down the road, I have to believe in hope that they did. But again, it's for DOJ's purposes as an investigator, I would have wanted this as far as possible in the advance of becoming public, just, you know, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier. So I would, if DOJ has not talked to her, I don't really envision a scenario where they don't. Yeah, and when this came out, the announcement of the emergency hearing, and we were all trying to figure out why does this have to be before Wednesday, why does this have to be now, why does this have to be now?

And I was thinking, well, maybe we look for some sort of law enforcement action the morning of, maybe they found out DOJ is going to do something and they need to hurry but that that's counterintuitive. Normally if you DOJ is going to do something you'll wait until they do it. So I was looking for some sort of law enforcement actions. Some sort of knock on a door, phone seizing kind of Eastman Clark situation or or something to that effect because you know we had that DOJ hearing postponed until those warrants were served on Clark and easement. I don't know if that's connected at all, but it would stand to reason that DOJ would

want to get these devices and get the evidence before it came out to the public. We didn't see anything like that unless it was something like I said at 2703 or something we haven't heard of yet. We didn't hear about the East Miner Clark law enforcement actions until a week or so after they happened. Yeah, it could be that. I mean, some of these, there's so many unknowns. I mean, obviously, not obviously.

List Cheney has been out on campaign trails. She went out and gave a speech to a bunch of Republicans at the Reagan Library where everybody apparently stood and cheered and everybody's hoping that means that the Republican Party isn't on its deathbed quite yet. She went out and she's been giving speeches at other places. Fourth of July is coming up. It could be that all these members said, we have campaign, you know, it's election year. We have campaign requirements that we need to attend to and events we need to attend. Fourth of July, we need to go back home to our districts. We don't want to wait until mid July.

We've got momentum. We've got this explosive thing. Let's get it out. So I give up something to tell you about. It could be that. It could be, it could be, you know, who knows? It could be, yeah, you know, we've got, you know, Cassie Hutchinson's attorney telling them not in any detail, but maybe they've got

a grand jury subpoena for her on January 5th or 6th, and he tells the committee, hey, look, would really like to come in and speak to you before this date without telling them why. So, I mean, there are a ton of things that could be playing into it. I just, as an investigator, I, things like that. Again, because every, and you see what's happening. Everybody is calibrating this story, like all these initial attacks on her credibility

are saying, oh, that's not what Aranato said. And people are quoting unnamed secret service sources saying, no, there was never an attack. And then today, which you mentioned, people are saying, no, there were MPD, but DC Metch-Pond police officers who saw it, the story was all over the Secret Service. And so as an investigator, your ability to lock into people in their statement,

now by the time you get to them, everybody's like seeing the news and gotten their story straight and you're gonna get one answer instead of like five slightly different answers, which give you better information. So that's just what it is. And I just can't imagine like he, he and this group of 40 other, a lot of them former federal

prosecutors being like, oh yeah, just let her say that publicly and don't worry about the DOJ. Like I just can't see that being a thing. Yeah, I, I am sure they know how this might adversely impact a federal investigation. I can also see them like he fees running for didn't he announced for governor or something. I can see them saying, you know what, I have an opinion, but at the end of the day, I work for the committee that's Congress, how Congress and DOJ sort out what they're doing, I'm not going to get in the middle of it. If they want my opinion to say, is this going to be good, bad, and different? I'll give it to him, but that's a political issue for the bosses.

Not one for me. And just... I don't be... Interesting. Interesting. I'd be making noise, but you know, that's what I don't work there. It's probably a good reason that I don't. But I thank you for your information today.

I appreciate it, because you know, I know you went through it with Mueller and several other things too, so I was particularly with your information today. I appreciate it because you know, I know you went through it with Mueller and several other things too So I was particularly with obstruction of justice So thank you very much everybody check out the book compromised. You definitely want to read that and I you're gonna have like a another like a six edition Right, I mean, there's so much Gotta do something. Yeah, when it's all done. I mean there might be enough to uh, yeah completely root right it So we'll see just a whole new book. Thanks so done. I mean there might be enough to uh yeah completely rewrite it so we'll see. Haha just a whole new book. Thanks so much. I appreciate your time, Peace Truck.

Yeah absolutely. Happy Fourth. Alright everybody it's time for the fantasy indictment league. I'm gonna be a dite it! Oh wait it's gonna be a... Dite it! I'm dick! And Dite it! I'm gonna be a dite it!

Oh wait they can't it's gonna be okay. Just calm down. I can't calm down I I'm gonna be dead. And my team isn't gonna change much this week. I am stumped as to what's going on in the Gates probe. It's been six months since they got that girlfriend's testimony on the three-way call. Greenberg sentencing is a couple months away, but I'm gonna leave Gates on the team,

along with LAK, I haven't heard about the two special prosecutors sent down from DC who specialize in sex, exploitation of children and public corruption. I haven't heard them having left the middle district of Florida yet. I haven't heard anybody resigning in protest about not, you know, a charging decision to not indict gates. So I'm going to leave gates on there with LAK and Jacob Engels. Then of course Rudy and Tonesing in the Southern District of New York, Sydney Powell and Lin Wood out of the DCU S. Attorney's Office. It's too soon, I think, for Donald and Fulton County, but I'm going to draft some Randolph-Rodgillant electors from the 2020 Fragile and Electors scheme, and then Stone, Roger Stone and Alex Jones in the

Oathkeepers and Proud Boys conspiracy. So that is our show this week. I will be back July 24th for Mueller, she wrote. And coverage will be on the daily beans in between now and then. So subscribe to that show if you're not already. And please check out the latest MSW Book Club episode covering Ellie Mustalls New York Times Best Seller, Allow me to retort a black guy's guide to the Constitution. And I'll be back on the beans tomorrow with Dana Goldberg. Until then, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other,

take care of the planet, take care of your mental health, and vote blue over Q. I've been AG, and this is Mullershi Road. Mullershi Road is written and produced by Allison Gil in partnership with MSW Media. Sound Design and Engineering, or by Molly Hockey, Jesse Egan is our copywriter and our art and web designer by Joe Elrider at Moxie Design Studios. Mueller She Wrote is a proud member of MSW Media, a group of creator-owned podcasts focused on news, justice, and politics. For more information, visitwmedia.com.

Hi I'm Dan Dunn, host of What We're Drinking With Dan Dunn, the most wildly entertaining adult beverage-themed podcast in the history of the medium. That's right, the boozy best of the best baby. And we have the cool celebrity promos to prove it. Check this out. Hi, I'm Allison Janney and you're here with me on What We're Drinking with Dan Dunn. And that's my sexy voice. Boom. Boom is right Academy Award winner Allison Janney.

As you can see, celebrities just love this show. How cool is that? Hey, this is Scottie Pippin and you're listening to the Dan Dunn Show and wait, hold on. The name of the show is what? Alright, sure. Scottie Pippin momentarily forgot the show's name, but there's a first time for everything. Hey everyone, this is Scoot McNary. I'm here with Dan Dunn on What Are You Drinking? What's it called again?

Fine, twice. But famous people really do love this show. Hi, this is Will Forte and you're, for some reason, listening to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn. Now, what do you mean for some reason, Will Forte? What's going on? Hi, this is Kurt Russell. Listen, I escaped from New York, but I couldn't get the hell out of Dan Dunn's happy hour. Please send help. Send help!

Oh, come on, Kurt Russell. Can somebody out there please help me? I'm Deed of Antease and you're listening to What We're Drinking With Dan Dunn. Let me try one more time. Come on. Is it right? It's amazing, isn't it? It's amazing, isn't it?

Is it right? Ah, that's better. So be like Deedevantiste friends and listen to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn, available wherever you get your podcasts. M-S-W-Media. you