Jack - The Case for Indicting (feat. Asha Rangappa)

Episode Date: December 26, 2021

This week: We have an executive order by Biden on battling transnational organized crime as well as differences between the Biden and Obama Administrations about how to deal with Russia as it relates to our ally Ukraine; we have some Flynn news including how terrible his lawyers are; a letter from the Chairman of the House Judiciary to the DoJ inspector general; some Schadenfreude involving Durham’s floundering investigation into the oranges of the Russia probe; plus the Fantasy Indictment League.Follow our Guest:Asha Rangappahttps://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_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/thedailybeansPromo CodesSubscribe to Prevail with Greg Olear https://link.chtbl.com/prevail

Hey, it's Kimberly Host of The Start Me Up Podcast. If you like your politics with some loose talk and salty language, you're going to love my show. I interview the coolest people like Mary Trump, Kathy Griffin, and DNC Chair Jamie Harrison. The Start Me Up Podcast has an easygoing, casual style and a strong emphasis on left-leaning politics. We also have Frank discussions about sex and more than a few spirited rants. Just visit patreon.com slash start me up or wherever you get your podcast and start listening today.

Hey all, this is Glenn Kirschner and you're listening to Muller Shee wrote. So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what I think 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 of truth in that campaign and I didn't have, not have communications with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin

for having nothing to do with Putin? I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about a mother than he will respect me. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. So it is political. You're a communist.

No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red hairing. Like all members of the oldest profession I'm a capitalist. Hello and welcome to the final episode of Muller She Wrote for 2021. I'm your host, A.G., Alison Gil. I have a great show for you today. First, I'll be chatting with the amazing Aasha Rangapa about her latest piece at cafe.com About how the Justice Department needs to pursue obstruction charges against Trump outlined in volume two of the Mueller report We have an executive order. I want to talk about by Biden on battling transnational organized crime as well as differences between the Biden and Obama administrations about how to deal with Russia as it relates to our ally Ukraine.

We have some Flynn news, including how terrible his lawyers are. We have a letter from the chairman of the House Judiciary to the Department of Justice Inspector General and some Shadon Freude, involving Durham and his floundering investigation into the oranges of the Russia probe. I'll also have sabotage, and of course the fantasy indict indictment league, we do have a lot to get to. So let's jump in with just the fact. First up, the new executive order from President Joe Biden, quote, by the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution of the Laws of the United States

of America, I hereby order as follows, man. Section one, purpose. Transactional organized crime,, T-O-C. Poses are direct and escalating threat to public health, public safety, and national security. Transnational criminal organizations engage in a broad range of criminal activities including drug and weapons trafficking, migrant smuggling, human trafficking, cyber crime, intellectual property theft, money laundering, wildlife and timber trafficking,

illegal fishing, and illegal mining. These networks continue to expand in size and influence the U.S. and abroad. Transnational criminal organizations contribute directly to tens of thousands of drug overdose deaths in the U.S. each year and adversely affect American communities and economic prosperity. They also threaten U.S US national security by degrading the security and stability of allied and partner nations. Now undermining the rule of law, fostering corruption, acting as proxies for hostile state activities, directly or indirectly funding insurgent and terrorist groups, depleting natural resources, harming human health in the environment, contributing to climate change through illegal deforestation and logging, and exploiting and endangering vulnerable

populations. In some regions, transnational criminal organizations wield state-like capabilities, disregarding sovereign borders, compromising the integrity of democratic institutions, and threatening the legitimacy of fragile governments, and securing their power through intimidation, corruption, and violence. For these reasons, it is in the national interest of the U.S. to counter TOC. Addressing TOC requires a coordinated federal framework accompanied by a cohesive whole-of-government effort executed in collaboration with state, local, tribal, territorial, and civil society partners in the United States and in close coordination with foreign partners, international and regional organizations,

and international and local civil society groups abroad. Policy Section 2 Executive departments and agencies shall take actions within their respective authorities, including as appropriate through the provision of technical and financial assistance to enhance efforts to counter TOC. It's the policy the United States to A. Employee authorized intelligence and operational capabilities in an integrated manner to target, disrupt, degrade, transnational criminal organizations that pose the greatest threat to national security. B. Collaborate with private entities and international multilateral and

bilateral organizations to combat transnational organized crime, while also strengthening cooperation with and advancing efforts to build capacity in partner nations to reduce transnational criminal activity. See, improve information sharing between law enforcement entities in the intelligence community to enhance strategic analysis of and efforts to combat transnational criminal organizations and their activities, while also preserving our ability to speedily bring TOC actors to justice. D, expand tools and capabilities to combat illicit finance, which underpins all TOC activities, and E, develop and deploy new technologies to identify and disrupt existing and newly emerging TOC threats.

Section 3 Establishments There shall be established in the United States Council on Transnational Organized Crime, USC TOC, which shall report to the President through an assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The USC TOC shall monitor the production and implementation of coordinated strategic plans for the whole of government, counter TOC efforts in support of and in alignment with policy priorities established by the President through National Security Council. So, priorities to National Security Council, we're creating a new position. Your position is to coordinate with all the law enforcement

and all the agencies about them combating TOC and you report it to me. The USTOC shall replace the threat mitigation working group previously directed to lead a whole of government effort on TOC under executive order 13773 of 2017, enforcing federal law with respect to transnational criminal organizations and preventing international trafficking. Accordingly, section three of executive order, the 1370-73, 1377-73, Trump's, your thing is revoked. Now, the USC TOC shall consist of the following members.

Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director for National Intelligence. Ooh, it's like a super group. It's like Temple of the Dog, but for national security. The USC T.O.C. may request other agencies to contribute to their efforts as necessary.

They shall meet no later than 60 days from this date. There shall be established a strategic division and interagency work in group housed by the Department of Justice, comprising personnel from agencies designated above. That division shall produce coordinated strategic plans for a whole of government counter TSE efforts. You got to come up with the plans. Division shall be chaired by a senior official from the Department of Justice,

or the Department of Homeland Security. You pick The chairperson sells shall serve a two-year term the attorney general in the secretary of Homeland Security or their Designed shall alternate every two years Selecting the chairperson So first Garland gets to pick then the the DHS guy gets to pin and then they just go back and forth every two years. That's nice Then the DHS guy gets a pin and then they just go back and forth every two years. That's nice. The division will be established for administrative purposes within the DOJ.

And the DOJ shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, provide administrative support and funding for the division. So this is your baby, DOJ. Agencies designated above are hereby directed, consistent with their authorities, budget priorities, and mission constraints, and to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the need to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources, methods, and operations, and investigations to provide the division A, details or assignments of personnel, B, relevant information such as research, intel, and analysis,

C, other such resources and assistance as the division may request. And then, of course, to the extent permitted by law, agencies listed above are encouraged to detail or assign their employees to the division on a non-reimbursable basis. The division within 120 days of this date shall shall submit to the USC, USC, USC, a report describing a process that they can implement on an ongoing basis. Get your plans ready. Have it for us by 120 days from now.

Section four, report the DNI within 120 days of today. Shall submit a report to the president through the assistant to the president for national security affairs, assessing the ICs posture with respect to TOC related collection efforts, including recommendations on resource allocation and prioritization. Then section five is definitions where they talk about what the words in this document mean. Every government document has as a definitions section in case you didn't get it.

And then the general provisions, which is the legalese, nothing in this order shall be construed to impair the authority granted by law. Nothing here says you can break the law or go against policy, et cetera. It'll be implemented consistent with applicable law and the budget availability. And this order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or inequity by any party against the United States. It's department's agencies or entities,

officers, employees, agents or any other person. And that is the new plan to get a plan on how to combat transnational organized crime. Very cool. Next up, Jerry Nadler. Chairman of the Judiciary in the House has sent the following letter to the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, dear Inspector General Horowitz. Last year, I wrote you to request that you investigate the use of force by federal law

enforcement against Americans exercising their right to peaceably assemble. You undertook that investigation without delay, and I understand the work is ongoing. Because of recent troubling reports, I write today to request that your review include an examination of the surveillance practices of certain federal agencies during the national protest activity that began in May 2020 and continues to this day. That's the George Floyd protests. According to December 22, 2021 report agents to the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI infiltrated First Amendment protected protests in Portland, Oregon. That's Trump's FBI and Department of Homeland

Security. The FBI, according to sources, quote, set up extensive surveillance operations inside Portland's protest movement with agents standing shoulder to shoulder with activists. This surveillance operation allegedly included agents from both the FBI and DHS involved in plain clothes law enforcement, dressing in all black to match protesters and infiltrate the crowd. I ask that your office as part of its review initiated by the July 19, 2020 letter I wrote, request instances in which federal law enforcement used tactics like these to surveil citizens engaged in First Amendment protected activity.

From May 2020 to the present, I request you identify and review the locations where these similar surveillance efforts took place, and the length, breadth, and scope of the operations. I also ask you review the authorizing processes within the Department of Justice that allow such operations to take place, including a review of whether the political motivations of particular protests impact federal law enforcement response. Finally, I asked that you examine what actions law enforcement took during these surveillance operations, including but not limited to assistance with arrests, video footage, and intelligence gathering.

I look forward to seeing the results of your investigation into the use of force and surveillance operations against Americans engaging in peaceful protests. I thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. Wow. They didn't do that during January 6th. Did they? And when the US intelligence community first picked up signs in the fall that Russia could be preparing a new attack on Ukraine, President Joe Biden directed his administration to act and fast. Wary of repeating mistakes made in 2014 when he was the vice president, when the U.S. and Europe were caught off guard by the annexation of Crimea, Biden directed his national security team to use every tool possible to try to deter Putin while a possible invasion was still assessed to be several months away.

Quote what we've been doing is very calculated, but we only have about a four-week window from now to pull it off. The response began with a flurry of intense diplomatic activity in early fall, including a trip by CIA director Bill Burns to Moscow to warn Putin directly against attacking Ukraine. But as Russian troops continued to amass near Ukraine's border, the quiet diplomacy quickly evolved into a stark public warning to Putin to back down or face harsh sanctions and increased US military assistance to Ukraine. Taut Biden officials are now emphasizing that the consequences would go above and beyond anything Russia faced in 2014. In contrast, the options on the table now would be overwhelming, immediate, and inflict significant cost on the Russian economy and their financial system.

The intelligence community came under fire in 2014 when Biden was vice president, over what some lawmakers said was a failure to predict Russia's incursion to Crimea until it was too late. And after that attack, Biden's push to arm Ukraine and impose extremely severe sanctions on Russia was largely overruled by Obama. Now in charge, Biden has wanted to do things very differently. Quote, this administration has been much more proactive, and there is more of a realistic sense now that Putin is capable of absorbing a lot of pain in an effort to impose costs on the US and our allies. That was Tom Malanowski, Democratic rep from New Jersey, who served as the State Department Senior Most Human Rights official in 2014. Now that has resulted in a far more robust intelligence sharing operation with Ukraine about

Russia's planning than anything that occurred in 2014. Partly because Ukrainian government is a more reliable partner now than it was then said one former NATO official. And partly because Biden firmly believes Ukraine cannot be left out of any discussions that concern its future. Yeah, wise. All right, I'll be right back with Asha Rengapa to discuss the Mueller obstruction road map right after this.

Stay with us, we'll be right back. Dameng Spada is a prevail. Iwa Shvitushi, Greg, Greg, Olia. I'm Greg, Olia and this is prevail. There's a goal here, which is to make sure that Vladimir Putin not only stays in power, but that's there allowed to continue stealing. When you look at Brexit and you say,

what might have also happened when the idea was being attuned? Get it? Sort of like Brexit. A bunch of confused people, following orders, really having no idea what they were doing. Tax avoidance on that level is only serving the interests, frankly, of a lot of mobsters and corrupt governments.

The inherent question is, isn't Maria Bettina's spy? And Maria Bettina was a charge of espionage, so that's a lot of mobsters and corrupt governments. The inherent question is, is Maria Patina a spy? And Maria Patina was a charge of espionage, so that's a difficult place to start to begin with. Those intangibles that those people want to have, we can't take advantage of that in dealing with Russia and China and Iran. If we can't do that, then you know what? Maybe we don't deserve to continue. Prevail with Greg Olyar, every Friday. Everybody, welcome back.

Happy today and honor today to be joined by my friend, former FBI special agent, Aasha Rangapa, Aasha, how are you? Good, Allison, how are you? I'm good, it's been a while. I'm happy to talk to you today. I know, I feel like we've been in touch on Twitter. Yeah, but it's not the same.

It's not the theme at all. We need to have wine and fries soon. Totally. Uh, so you did this great piece for, for cafe.com. Uh, you've been talking about this for a, I've been talking about it for, you know, I do weekly tweets to the DC US attorney's office about the beautiful, fabulous, delightful, eloquent volume two of the Mueller report that just lays perfectly the road map, which is a very, very short road map, by the way, very short

map, to prosecute or indict or at least consider obstruction of justice charges for the former president. Can you talk a little bit about your piece for cafe.com? Yeah, my piece makes the affirmative case for prosecuting Trump. And I lay out some of the arguments that I have seen made against prosecuting Trump. And I think to rewind even just a little bit, it feels like some of the enthusiasm for prosecuting Trump for obstruction has just waned because a Mueller report feels like a long time ago, you know, obstruction just feels like, you know, oh, what's a little obstruction when he tried to overthrow the government. It feels like there's just more pressing urgent things.

And that's, I get the sense that it's sort of like, oh, that ship has sailed. But in terms of the legal arguments, what I've seen is, well, it's just, it's gonna be too hard to convince a jury. Because Trump is going to be able to create reasonable doubt in all of these different ways. He's going to be able to mount constitutional defenses that are really complicated and it's always bad to try to, you know, test these in court. And it would mainly be really bad to try to prosecute him and lose because that would appear as though the Department of Justice

was trying to just go after political opponents of the current administration and we don't want to set that kind of norm. And so my piece really says, okay, well let's accept all of those as true. And by the way, I make sure to emphasize that the inability to get to condensatory, I don't think is based on the sufficiency of the evidence, which is ample. And at the time of the Muller Report, 400 federal prosecutors signed a letter saying, if you were any other person,

the Department of Justice would have charged him a long time ago. So I don't think it's about the sufficiency of the evidence. And I want to make that clear. It's not that charges aren't warranted. It's all about, you know, whether you could actually secure a conviction. And in my piece, just basically says, okay, let's assume that you can't. Actually, there are still important values that we vindicate by prosecuting him, nevertheless. And among these are number one, that you emphasize that no one is above the law. Number two, that it's especially important

to make sure we hold the president accountable for obstruction of justice precisely because he has this powerful constitutional authority to enforce the law. We need to make clear the line between a faithful execution of those laws and corrupt ones. And finally, that we ensure legitimacy, our faith and legitimacy of the justice system, when we show that the administration of justice is independent and that we bring the prosecuting, the very act of bringing the prosecution demonstrates that the president is still a person who must abide

by the law. And we showed this in the impeachment proceedings, I think. We knew he wasn't going to be convicted and removed, but I think in both cases, it was really important to have that process take place just as a line in the sand and if nothing else than to leave a precedent for the future and make it clear that these you know these are impeachable offenses. So I can go into detail that all of those arguments but that's essentially where you know what my my pieces about. And this might be something I don't know. I do know that the rules of federal criminal procedure require that you consider that you

have to obtain and maintain a conviction on appeal before you indict somebody. Does that include considerations of how you think the jury will feel in a split, in a specific jurisdiction? feel and a split in a specific jurisdiction. I mean, I feel like that rule is there for whether or not it will hold up under law, not whether or not it will hold up under what a jury kind of feels that week. And secondly, what rule, what rule are you referring to? Where you, if you're going to indict somebody, you have to be able to obtain and maintain a conviction. Like that's a consideration. You mean the internal justice department policy?

Right. Yeah. So the justice department policy is that the evidence needs to be sufficient to be able to convince an unbiased jury. An unbiased jury viewing the evidence objectively, would find it sufficient to convict. Yes, and it's not. And there's actually a piece in there that says,

when you have a very popular defendant or someone who, in gender's a lot of emotion, the fact that you may not be able to secure a conviction because of some of these subjective factors, right? Because it's a very popular person and biases may come into play is not a reason not to bring charges. That's my question. It's about the and that's kind of what I was saying is, you know, the arguments I was hearing, from very, you know, people I respect a lot and I think, you know, are being thoughtful about it You know, people I respect a lot and I think, you know, are being thoughtful about it was, you know,

you need to have a slam dunk case, airtight, all the way around. And one of the points I make in my piece is, here's a news flash. It's not just that it would be hard to convict Trump for obstruction of justice. It would be hard to convict any former president of any crime. I mean, just think about it.

I mean, imagine if, you know, whether it was George W or Bill Clinton or, you know, Jimmy Carter, I mean, that's always gonna be an uphill battle because the president is a larger than life figure. And, you know, you just don't know how jury is going to see it. And he is going to be able to make a persuasive and compelling case about being persecuted.

And there's always going to be entanglements that with constitutional defenses, you know. So I just don't think that in this kind of case, that should be the standard. No, I agree. I agree. And I think also I think what people might be concerned with, I'm not one of these people, but this is something else I've heard because you said, you know, you could lose because it's hard to bring a case against the president. I think it's an airtight case as it stands.

But I mean, there are, I am not a lawyer in there, tons It's, I think it's an airtight case as it stands. But I mean, there are, I am not a lawyer in their tons of variables, like he said. Just looking at that chart, though, of all the elements met for specific things, looks pretty airtight to me. And we got McGahn's testimony to back it up and verify it. But anyway, whole, whole different show. I just don't see that I I, I guess a lot of people are concerned of if we, if you do lose, if you do bring it and you do lose because you get one juror hold out who's a huge Trump supporter in DC somewhere, uh, then is that worse to not bring it or to bring it and lose?

And I, I'm in the, it's worse to not bring it camp. I think it's worse to not bring it. And especially for this particular crime. Because as I say in the piece, this is the crime that every president, you know, any corrupt president, you know, whatever shenanigans they're going to engage in, given their power over the executive branch, they will try to obstruct it because they can, or they will try to, you know, they think they have the influence and power to do it, it's their law enforcement agencies. And so it's almost the most important crime to bring because it's really about vindicating the idea that the administration of justice is an appendant.

You know, and that that is such a building block of our democracy and the rule of law that just asserting that principle and saying we are going to fight for it wherever those chips may fall. I think is important. And you know, juries are fickle. People know that we've all seen OJ and we saw Kyle written house and all the stuff. People get that and people will be outraged and there may be ways in which they get, you know, jaded.

But I think people, people respect the righteous prosecution. Yeah, you know, and we're coming up on the statute of limitations, as you mentioned, at least the first ones popping off in February with the Flynn discussions as far as, you know, the Russia thing and to pressure taken off. And just recently was on TV, saying, boy, I'm glad I fired that Comey boy, because I wouldn't be sitting here right now. There'd be no book. There'd be no anything like, wow, we just admitted it right out in public. So we are running out of time for the DCUS attorney who I think would have jurisdiction in this

case to bring these prosecutions. Yeah. And I just, you know, what kind of message do we send? Yeah. When we, you know, we're supposed to be a model for the rest of the world on the rule of law. We go around, we lecture people about that. And, you know, we go in lecture countries where it's actually really dangerous to try to try to hold a public leader accountable.

You know, people put their lives on the line to try to hold a public leader accountable. People put their lives on the line to try to investigate ahead of state or prosecute them. We have the ability to do it. We have the ability to show there is a way for the administration justice to be independent and to say that no man is above the law. I don't think that that principle needs, like I think that we strengthen democracy

even if we lose by bringing the prosecution. That's by bottom line. Yeah, the message is sent. We won't stand for it. You're not above the law. Don't care for you, the president. And it also creates a deterrent effect for future presidents. Yeah. Right? I mean, it says, yes, really, yeah. You try to pull this and it will be investigated and it will be brought to light. And I think, you know, the public really needs an accounting of this, in a way that is clearer and more public than, you know, the Muller Report, which as I also point out in the piece, nobody read, except for a lot of lawyers. I saw that.

I saw that. I saw that. And indictments are a really powerful way of doing that, of telling the story and of leaving a historical record of putting all the evidence together. That's my view. Yeah, no, I agree.

And I appreciate you coming on and sharing this. Everybody check it out at cafe.com Everybody follow asha rangapa on Twitter and of course we can see you talking head all the time on our favorite cable news networks. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much asha Thank you. I'm Greg Oliar four years ago. I stopped writing novels to report on the crimes of Donald Trump and his associates in 2018 I wrote a best-selling book about it, Dirty Rubles. In 2019, I launched Proveil, a bi-weekly column about Trump and Putin, spies and mobsters, and so many traders! Trump may be gone, but the damage he wrought will take years to fully understand.

Join me, and a revolving crew of contributors and guests, as we try to make sense of it all. This is Proveil. All right, everybody, it's time for sabotage. [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ And Mike Flynn is in hot water. Again, and again, Mike Flynn has swiftly lost his bid in court to block a possible House Select Committee

subpoena for his phone records and hold off demands that he speak to the panel investigating January 6th. The ruling Wednesday comes one day after he asked a federal judge in Florida for a temporary restraining order, and it's the first quick response to a lawsuit from a House witness after several went to court to try to invalidate the committee and block the House from pursuing their phone records. So far, 11 others for whom the committee and block the house from pursuing their phone records. So far, 11 others, for whom the committee's subpoenaed phone records have sued, overall the house has already spoken to dozens of witnesses and requested more than 100 people's

phone records. While the lawsuit to challenge the house, while all of them are gaining attention, they've revealed that the committee appears to be notching many successful interviews about the pro-Trump rally and its high-profile right wing participants in the insurrection on January 6th, and that they're likely to receive large amounts of call-log data from Verizon and AT&T, and they probably have them already. Flynn went to court on Tuesday, just a day after he was scheduled to testify, and what appeared to be an attempt to hold off the consequences of his failure to appear, as well as any other fact-finding by the panel. District Judge Mary Scriven in Tampa, GW appointee, said in the

decision that Flynn didn't meet the procedural requirements to make his case. And he could refile in the future or allow his request to play out on a longer schedule in court. Flynn had sought help from the judge by Thursday, and at this time the dates were unclear as to when Flynn needed to turn over documents to the committee and appear for a deposition, and it wasn't known if his phone records had actually been subpoenaed. Flynn and his complaint had told the judge he was initially in talks with the committee and was beginning to preserve and collect documents to share with them. The committee agreed to delay his deposition, setting it for Monday.

But Scriven noted the document deadline passed weeks ago in November,, the committee agreed to delay his deposition, setting it for Monday. But Scriven noted the document deadline passed weeks ago. In November, and the committee was planning to push back the deposition again to a date to be determined. The judge said Flynn hasn't provided the court any relevant evidence about his communications with the committee. Quote Flynn has not, however, provided any information about the date by which the select committee currently expects him to produce documents. Thus, on this record, there's no basis to conclude that Flynn will face immediate and

a reprobble harm before the defendants have an opportunity to respond. Now Flynn said he told the committee he planned to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and was going to court instead of appearing in person. In the lawsuit, he outlines how his failure to appear for testimony might be a sticking point with the committee, believing it could lead the House to vote to hold him in contempt. Flynn has long faced tribulations in court since he lied in 2017 to the FBI and Mike Pence, while serving as national security adviser in the Trump White House. He lost his job over the episode, he pleaded guilty twice in federal court to making false

statements but was pardoned by Trump near the end of his administration and became a public voice in right wing circles, touting an absolute nonsense conspiracy theories. So we'll see what happens there, but it doesn't look good for him. All right. I have a little present for you. It's time for a little shot and broida. Shot and boy. All right.

This is, this is just fun. Kevin Klein-. He was the FBI lawyer who pled guilty to altering an email about the informant status of one Carter page after being indicted by Durham. He was indicted by Durham for changing that email. Well, he's been restored as a member in good standing by the district of Columbia bar. as a member in good standing by the district of Columbia bar. So he got his law license back. It was suspended for a little while. Supposed to be suspended for a year. It was suspended for five months.

He petitioned to get it reinstated earlier and they said, sure. Suck it Durham. All right time for the fantasy indictment league. I'm gonna be a candidate. No, it is gonna be a candidate. I'm a dick. A candidate. I'm a dick. It's gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay.

I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay.

I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay.

I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. I'm gonna be okay. and the new DA will come in. Now, really, the whole thing is kind of being run by former US attorney Palmarants and some of the prosecutors from the New York Attorney General's office. But he is the figurehead there, and he said long ago he would make a charging decision before he left office, though that was a while ago. He hasn't changed that statement, but I don't know that he was expecting to need to in panel a second special grand jury that will go on until

April next year. But we'll see. And then I'm going to keep Rudy, tonzing into Genova. And then I'm going to keep Gates, Engels and L.A. Key in Florida in the middle district. And I'm going to add a Rando tax fraud real estate scheme indictment from the middle district of Florida. There's been two that have come out in the last couple of weeks.

I don't know if they're related to what's going on in the Gates Greenberg investigation. I just find that a little weird. So I think there might be another one and a Tom Barrett plea agreement. We'll do that. And let's, you know, Ivanka, why not for the holidays? As you know, I'm off this week, but it's like I said, it is a holiday. It might be slow, it might be slow news week.

There's usually an indictment. When I take vacation, the last time it was the, weiselberg Trump organization in Tom Barich. We'll see what happens. I'm not sure. It is a holiday, so it might be quiet. But so we might not see anything. But I do have daily beans content for you. This week, starting tomorrow,

with an interview with Stephanie Winston-Walkoff. She was the one who wrote the book, Melania and me. You don't want to miss it. Until then, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health. I've been A.G. And this is Mullershy Road. Mueller She wrote 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 as a proud member of MSW Media, a group of creator-owned podcasts focused on news, justice, and politics. For more information, visitWNedia.com. Hi, I'm Harry Lickman, host of Talking Feds. Around Table, it 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 sidebar is explaining important legal concepts read by your favorite celebrities. Find Talking Fedswear ever you get your podcasts. M-S-O-W-Media.