Jack - The FARA Faucet (feat. Jill Wine-Banks)

Episode Date: December 12, 2021

This week: an update on Deutsche Bank investigations; new regulatory modifications to FARA laws; how Jim Baker has blown holes in Durham’s indictment of Sussman who handed over Alfa-Bank server communication data to the FBI and the CIA; a big loss in court for Julian Assange; a chat with Jill Wine-Banks about the Mark Meadows lawsuit against Nancy Pelosi and the January 6th Committee; plus some Sabotage and the Fantasy Indictment League.Follow our Guest:Jill Wine-Bankshttps://twitter.com/JillWineBankshttps://www.jillwinebanks.com/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 Codes Love coffee? For our listeners, right now Trade is offering a total of $20 off your first three bags at checkout. To get yours, go to drinktrade.com/msw and use promo code MSW. Head to CreditKarma.com/LoanOffers to see personalized offers with your Approval Odds right now. Go to CreditKarma.com/LoanOffers to find the loan for you.

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. This happens to pay for what with somebody else's money. Hey all, this is Glenn Kirschner, and you're listening

to Mueller She wrote. So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what 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 two in that campaign.

And I didn't have, not have, communications with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin for? I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about a mother than he will respect me. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

So it is political. You're a communist. No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring. Like all members of the oldest profession I'm a capitalist. Hello and welcome to Muller She Wrote. I'm your host A.G. Alison Gil.

We have a great show for you today, including a chat with Jill Wine Banks about the Mark Meadows lawsuit against Nancy Pelosi in the January 6th committee. We have an update on Deutsche Bank investigations. We have new regulatory modifications to pharaoh laws. How Jim Baker has blown holes in Durham's indictment of Susman, who handed over Alfa Bank server communication data to the FBI and the CIA. We have a big loss for Julian Assange. And of course, we have sabotage and the fantasy indictment league after we talk to Joanne Banks. So if you want these episodes ad-free, by the way, along with daily beans ad-free and the book club ad-free

and a ton of other perks, just head to patreon.com slash mullershyroat. We have a lot to get to, so let's jump in with just the facts. Alright, first up. Remember when we got the private Twitter messages between Trump Jr. and Assange? Trump Jr. released them. He was looming the truth, right? Getting the truth out there, drawing the sting.

And he released those text messages. And one of them was what to do if Donald lost in 2016. Remember that? Let me read that message from Assange. Hi, Don. If your father loses in quotes, we think it's much more interesting if he does not concede and

spends time challenging the media and other types of rigging that occurred as he implied that he might do. He is also much more likely to keep his base alive and energized this way. And if he's going to start a new network, showing how corrupt the old ones are is helpful. The discussion about the rigging can be transformative as it exposes media corruption, primary corruption, PAC corruption, etc." Close quote. Well, as far as the media part goes, the S-PAC that plans to merge with former

President Trump's new social media company revealed Monday that the Securities and Exchange Commission and another regulator, that's FinRA, weeks ago asked it for information regarding the stock trading and communications with Trump's firm before the deal was announced. The investigations by the SEC and the financial industry regulatory authority, FINRA, were disclosed in an 8K filing with the SEC by digital world acquisition group, D-Wack. The special purpose acquisition company on track to merge with Trump media and technology group, special purpose. I found my special purpose.

Trump's company plans to launch a social media platform called Truth Social, which purportedly would compete with Twitter and Facebook. It won't. Both of which have banned the former guy because of his incitement of the January 6th Capitol riot. The Democratic-controlled House impeached Trump for incitement earlier this year, as we know, the Senate voted to acquit him even as seven Republican members voted for conviction. And the rest of them were like, oh, he did it, but you can't impeach or, you know, convict

a former president. Technicalities. CNBC last week reported that the company apparently had missed and announced November deadline for the launch of the beta version of Truth Social. D-Wack shares were trading at about 43 bucks a share Monday morning. That's down almost 3% on the news of the filing. Even as equity markets broadly were higher, the filing comes just two days after Trump Media and Technology Group and D-Wack said the S-PAC had reached an agreement to obtain a billion dollars in committed capital from

quote, a diverse group of institutional investors. And that was to be received when the merger is consummated. The identities of those investors and the so-called pipe or private investment public equity were not publicly disclosed. Monday's 8K filing by D.W.A. D. Wack detailed the terms of the pipe, whose subscribers will get shares with an initial conversion price of $33.60 per share, 33 bucks. The SEC and Finra investigations were disclosed at the end of the filing. D. Wack and Trump's firm did not immediately respond to an email from CNBC asking why the investigations were only

being disclosed weeks after D. Wack was contacted by the regulators, and also whether investors in the pipe were previously told about the probes when their capital was being solicited. Did you tell the billion-dollar diverse investors that you were under investigation? In its filings, the SPAC firm said shortly after the deal to merge with Trump's company was announced, Finra asked for information about stock trading that preceded the public announcement of the October 20, 2021 merger agreement. DeWack's stock price dramatically increased after the deal was announced, and the trading volume in the company shares exploded. Shares at the blank check firm, which had been trading around 10 bucks per share,

rocketed to up to $175 a share in the days afterward. D.W.A.C. also said Monday, in early November that the SEC sent D.W.A.C. of voluntary information and document requests that sought documents related to D.W.A.C. board meetings, policies about stock trading, the identities of certain investors and details of communications between D.W.A.C. and Trump's social media firm. The filing said that both the SEC and Finra indicated in their requests that there has been no determination of a violation of securities laws or other wrongdoing by the company. And D.W.A.C. filing comes three weeks after Senator Elizabeth Warren asked the SEC to investigate

possible securities violations involving the merger. And on the same day, the SEC and Finra announced investigations, and we got a hold of it in the public, Devon Nunes announced he was quitting Congress to run Trump's media company. All right, bye-bye. But anyway, back to Assange. Julian Assange, the 50-year-old founder of Wiki Leagues, he's a step closer to being extradited from Britain to the United States after the US government won an appeal in London's high court. Judge Timothy Holoride said Friday that the court allows the appeal. Quote unquote. In the US, the Australian entrepreneur will face criminal charges, including breaking a

spying law, espionage, and conspiring to hack government computers. espionage. A Holoride said the US had assured Britain that Assange's detention will meet certain conditions that are required for extradition. Assange, who was not permitted to attend the hearing in person, is wanted by US authorities over the publication of hundreds of thousands of classified military documents and diplomatic cables in 2010 and 2011. They say as actions put lives in danger and they accuse them of 18 counts, meaning he faces a 175-year prison

sentence. Assange spent most of the last decade in confinement. It started in 2012 when he hold himself up at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after he lost a UK Supreme Court appeal of his extradition to Sweden, where authorities wanted to question him about rape allegations. While the Swedish case was subsequently dropped, Assange was evicted from the embassy in April 2019 and arrested for skipping bail in the UK, and he was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison, and he's still being detained.

And speaking of Russian hacking, cyber command, the US military's hacking unit, has taken an offensive action to disrupt cyber criminal groups that have launched ransomware attacks in the US on companies, that's according to a spokesperson for the command, talking to CNN. The spokesperson declined to specify what actions the command had taken, but it's one of the first unequivocal acknowledgements from the cyber command since the colonial pipeline

ransomware attack in May that came from Russia and that this is the first one that command has targeted criminal gangs that hold the computer systems of US businesses hostage. New comments by General Paul Nakasoni, head of cyber command and director of the National Security Agency, which the New York Times reported earlier Sunday, signal that the US military's computer operatives have been increasingly willing to hack criminals and not just state actors who pose a threat to US critical infrastructure.

Security agencies across the US government have ramped up their pursuit of ransomware groups after hacks brought colonial pipeline, a major transportor of US fuel, and a major meat processing plant to a standstill earlier this year. CNN reported in June that the US government had taken offensive steps in response to ransomware, including compromising and surveilling cyber criminal networks. Now, we have a lot more to get to, including giant holes that were blown in Durham's probe. But right after the break, I'll be talking with former Watergate prosecutor and author

of the Watergate Girl. Awesome book. You should get it. She's an MSNBC legal analyst. Her name is Joel Weinbanks. You know her. And we'll talk about Mark Meadows. He is rolling the insurrection on January 6th and his loser of a lawsuit that he filed against the committee.

Stay with us. Hey everybody, it's A.G. You know how much I adore and I scub a coffee to start my day and that's why I'm excited to introduce you to Trade. Trade's goal is to make every cup of coffee your best ever. To achieve your ideal cup, take their coffee quiz. Do you use a French press, automatic drip, do you a cold brew person? No problem.

Your answers will allow trade to pair you with the perfect coffee to fit your taste. Trade will match you to coffees that you love from over 400 plus craft coffees, and they'll send you freshly roasted bags, as often as you like. Trade Guarantezial, love your first match. On the off chance, you don't,

they'll replace it with a different bag, for free. Give feedback as you sip, and as your preferences evolve, your coffee matches will too. I can feel good about each cup since trade partners with 55 small at least 55 small US base roasters who are committed to ethical and sustainable sourcing. For listeners right now, trade is offering a total of $20 off your first three bags at checkout.

To get yours, go to drinktraded.com slash MSW and use promo code MSW at checkout. I took the quiz. It was really easy. You'd automatic drip. They sent me these amazing bags of coffeeout. I took the quiz, it was really easy. You'd automatic drip, they send me these amazing bags of coffee and you can take the quiz to start your own journey to the perfect cup too. That's drinktraded.com slash MSW and promo code MSW for $20 off your first three bags. In this holiday season, give the coffee lever in your life, the gift of better coffee too, with their own personalized gift coffee subscription from trade. Enjoy!

Everybody, welcome back. I am happy to be joined tonight by MSNBC legal analyst author of The Watergate Girl, amazing book. You must pick it up. She's a Watergate and Federal Prosecutor. Please welcome Jill Weinbanks. Jill, hello. Hi, how are you today? Today was, there was a massive amount of news today. It's been this way all week. It has been, it has been this way actually for months. But every week on Hashtag Sisters and Law Podcast, we say we had trouble deciding what to talk about. This week is impossible. We have gone through so many possibilities

and there's gonna be more opinions tomorrow, we think. So it could change again, and we record tomorrow. Oh well. Yeah, and everyone has to check out sisters and lads. One of my favorite podcasts. You also do the Igen Politics podcast. And of course, the hashtag JillsPins, and you're wearing a lovely one right now.

Our listeners can't see it, but it's absolutely beautiful. Right, thank you. It's an American eagle because it represents democracy, and democracy had a win today. So that's why I'm wearing my eagle pin. That's absolutely beautiful. And I'm assuming the win you mean is the Trump case against the National Archives, which we went over earlier

in the week and on the daily beans. And I wanted to talk to you today about another lawsuit because you had tweeted out yesterday, Meadows suing Pelosi and January 6th committee. My prediction, he loses. Pretty straight into the point. Tell us why he's going to lose this case. Well, first of all, he's claiming the executive privilege and I have to say I wrote that tweet

before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Trump did not have executive privilege to stop the January 6th Committee. That only one president at a time can invoke the privilege, he can consider the former president's ideas, but he, that is President Biden, makes the decision. So when I said that, I didn't have that additional support. That clearly makes it stronger. I was basically on the fact that executive privilege only counts if you're talking about the job of the president. And there's no way that the January 6th is asking for anything about the job of the president.

It's asking for information about the president plotting a coup, plotting to obstruct Congress, plotting to stay in office by lying about the results of the election. And to me, that is clearly not covered by executive privilege. It's just totally not. And so that was one reason. The other, of course, is that he's written a book

talking about all these events. That's another reason why he has himself waived the privilege. So, number one, President Biden, who is the one who could invoke it, has said, I'm not invoking it. These people can testify. Number two, it's about a subject that has nothing to do with the job of the president. So, even if the president who could invoke it it didn't vote it it would fail. And third of all he's waived it by writing a book. So I feel pretty sure for those three reasons he's all loser.

Yeah, he's definitely that, especially today. And you know, I also have to remind everyone that as soon as he said that he flipped again and stopped cooperating with the committee, he went on Fox News that night and started talking about things that the committee wanted to ask him about. So there's another instance and you know what? I was betting I put out on Twitter. I'm like, I bet we'll see that video if we even get to the merits. I bet we'll see that video in evidence as him waving his executive privilege on national

television. I mean, it's absurd. Well, I was also on, I think it was on Lawrence last week also talking about this and said, I'm skeptical when he says he's cooperating. Cooperation can mean different things. And again, on the Sisters-in-law podcast, we talked about co-opper faking as opposed to cooperating and concluded that this was co-opper faking, that he was going to say it. Now on the other hand, he has given some documents that seem to be valuable.

So he did sort of cooperate, but I never, ever believed that he would actually tell the truth and fully cooperate. I remain skeptical and I still am. I think if, as I suspect that it's going to be clear that based on today's ruling, it'll go to the Supreme Court. I think the court will, the nice cert. They won't even review it. If they do, it's going to be a quick decision because if it isn't, it's really disrupting democracy because the Congress will expire and they have to get this done before the Congress ends. So we can't have this delayed until an argument next fall or so. I mean, it has

to be done on the fast stock on an expedited basis. So, you know, for the same reasons that I thought he would lose that meadows would lose before I even knew the decision that decision just totally strengthened it. Yeah, 100%. And I remember Adam Schiff saying something about, you know, we'll just file a motion to dismiss for the speech or debate clause. I mean, there's a million reasons that, that this would lose even if it was, even if the merits were considered, but I don't even think there's standing or, I mean, that there's going to, I think that, that you know that it may even be dismissed before we get that far but you're right this whole friend of mine today asked a very good question and she is a

civil lawyer and very got a very good firm in Chicago and she said why can't they just file a summary judgment motion you know say okay even if we accept all the facts that are set forth by the other side, there's no way that this can prevail. And I think that actually it is a very clear case on the law that there's no set of facts that could possibly lead to a decision contrary to this. The same is true.

If the Supreme Court were to take it, I think it's an easy decision. You have, you know, USB Nixon and GSA versus Nixon, which I think set clear precedence as to what is going on. Yeah, it totally meets the test for some redjudgment. I think, but, you know, I'm not a lawyer. But this seems

pretty cut and dry to me. But I have been surprised in the past who knows we'll see. And you know, even if the National Archives decision, which is actually seen a pretty expedited schedule, even if that is just narrow to these specific National Archives documents or just documents themselves and meos' turn over documents. The book, the Fox News, the Speech or Debate Club, I mean, there's a million things to get them on here. So I really appreciate your insight today.

And everybody needs to check out Sisters in Law, Igen Politics. You must read, you must purchase and read The Watergate Girl. It's absolutely incredible book. I loved reading it. Thank you for writing it. Thank you. And thank you. You and read the Watergate girl. It's absolutely incredible book. I loved reading it. Thank you for writing it. Thank you. And thank you. And it's so interesting.

The person who handles my website said, you should send a email to the people who have signed up for emails from you. And I've never sent an email. And he finally convinced me. And we sent one about an hour ago and one of the things on in this newsletter is that my book that I have a few copies of my book that I can autograph and send and within the first five minutes there were eight orders for books. So they're going to go fast.

I mean it was like amazing. I said to him, and it's probably a waste of money to send this. I mean, it was like amazing. I said to myself, this is probably a way of money to send this out, but obviously it probably wasn't. I'm very excited. I'm so happy that people actually want this. Well, you are beloved. I promise you that. Thank you very much. It's so nice of you to say. And, you know, I do know, I feel like, I mean, things are kind of, you know, feel like they're going slow, but looking at what happened during Watergate with public hearings 13 months after the break-ins and indictments another eight months after that,

it seems like we're kind of on that same little trajectory with the hearings and with, we don't know what DOJ is doing because they can't talk about it. I don't know, we'll see, but this is a lot bigger than Watergate. This is much worse than Watergate. I never felt democracy was at stake. The way I do now, I feel an existential threat. And I don't say that to depress or discourage any of your listeners.

I say that to motivate them to get out the vote, to be involved, to be informed, to work, to make sure that their voices are heard because I'm assuming that people listening to this are people who care in the same way you and I do. And it's going to take all of us not only voting, but making sure we get three new voters out there. People, the young people who haven't registered yet, let's get it out there. And let's make sure that new voting laws pass.

I mean, there's just, there's a lot to be done. We have to do. We have a lot of cleanup. We have a lot of work. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. Everybody, Jill, wine banks. Thank you. Everybody, stick around. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody. be right back.

Hey everybody, it's A.G. and this portion of the show is brought to you by Credit Karma. If you're feeling frustrated after being rejected for a credit card or personal loan, I get it. It happens a lot. And that's why Credit Karma is changing the way people find and apply for credit cards and loans. Whether you're refinancing Credit Card debt or paying for an upcoming expense, Credit Karma uses your credit data to show you fresh personal loan offers that are personalized to you. On Credit Karma, you can check out multiple loan offers side by side.

Members who compare loan offers on Credit Karma save an average of 30% on interest rates. It's completely free and easy to sign up for Credit Karma with no effect on your credit score. That's again, no effect on your credit score and that makes it simple to search for the right personal loan. Credit Karma will even show you your approval odds so you can choose offers that you're more likely to get approved for and apply with more confidence. And once you have that loan, Credit Karma can help you track your progress as you pay off your debt and even let you know if you can refinance to save. Finding a loan that fit my needs when I needed to pay off home renovations was tough,

but Credit Karma made it easy and helpful along the way. Credit Karma, apply with more confidence today. If you're ready to apply, head to creditcarma.com slash loan offers to see personalized loan offers with your approval odds right now. Soft pull on your credit won't hit it. Go to creditcarma.com slash loan offers to find a loan that's right for you. That's creditcarma.com slash loan offers. Hey everybody, welcome back.

Before we get to sabotage, let's talk about Durham and his weak sauce indictment of Michael Susman, a lawyer who was a Perkins Kooey guy worked for the Hillary Clinton Law firm, worked for a couple of cyber tech dudes, and he's a lawyer who provided the Alpha Bank server communication data that was communicating with that DeVos spectrum health joint, Betsy DeVos, Eric Prince spectrum health joint, Betsy DeVos, Eric Prince Spectrum Health joint, and the Trump Tower server. And he provided that data to the FBI and the CIA. Durham charged him.

Durham is, you know, Barr's special counsel investigating the oranges of the Russia probe. And Durham indicted him for lying to Jim Baker about whether there was, whether he was there on behalf of the Clinton campaign or who he was working for. But Durham's problem is that Baker is the only witness, no one else was there. He didn't take notes, and so they don't really know what the lie is. The case was already weak, but it just got a whole lot weaker. And once discovery started, Susman's lawyers got some ex-cultivatory information and asked for a fast trial,

because they were confident that charges would be dismissed based on new evidence, or at least they would lose in court, and Durham would lose. But Durham now wants more time. This is from Marcy Wheeler at emptywheel.net. Quote, Durham seems to think he'll need to have two extra months over what Susman gauges should be necessary, and permission to delay production of Brady materials to sustain the single false statement charge over Sussman.

As Sussman motioned to set a trial date submitted yesterday revealed, his team and Durham's are having a significant disagreement over when the trial should be scheduled. Because the Sussman wants to go now, because Durham sucks, and Durham was like, wait a minute, let's drag this out a little bit. Durham wants four months from now to turn over discovery and wants to schedule the trial for July whereas Susman thinks the trial should be held in May. Given two exhibits, Susman included with this motion and other publicly available documents is easy to see why Durham wants more time. That's because Jim Baker has said at least four different things that conflicted with

the alleged lie that Durham claims Susman told in that meeting with Baker. On or about September 19, Susman met with the FBI General Counsel at FBI Headquarters in the District of Columbia to convey the Russian Bank One allegations. No one else attended the meeting during the meeting the following in substance and part occurred. Susman stated falsely that he was not acting on behalf of my client, which led to the FBI General Counsel to understand that Susman was conveying the allegations as a good citizen and not as an advocate for any client. Susman stated he had been approached by multiple cyber experts, including the Russia Bank One allegations. Oh, excuse me, concerning the Russia Bank One allegations.

Russia Bank One is alpha bank. Susman provided the names of three cyber experts, but did not name or mention tech executive one, the Clinton campaign or any other person or company referenced in Durham's indictment. And we know from Susman's filing for a bill of particulars that the account of the lie in the Durham indictment was ambiguous at best. And that second hand notes about the Baker and Susman meeting by pre-stab were at odds with what Baker said. And then Marcy writes this, but it's far worse than that.

Jim Baker doesn't agree with Jim Baker about what happened in the meeting. Baker is provided at least four different versions of his understanding of why Susman shared the Alpha Bank information. At an October 3rd 2018 interview with the Oversight Committee, where Baker brought this whole thing up, he said, I don't recall Susman saying that he worked for the DNC. At an October 10th 2018 interview with the Oversight Committee, he told Jim Jordan he didn't remember Susman saying

he was acting on behalf of any particular client. In July of 2019, in an interview with the Department of Justice Inspector General, Baker explained that Susman said in their meeting, related to strange interactions, quote, that some number of people that were his clients who were, he described as I recall it, sort of cyber security experts had found out about some strange connection between some part of Donald Trump's organization and Alpha Bank. And in June 2020, with Durham's team, which as a 302 may be less reliable than the other sources,

that's Marcie Wheeler, Baker said, it does not seem like Susman was representing a client. Baker repeated his earlier assertion that he didn't know Susman was representing the DNC at the time and Susman did not advise him of the fact at this particular meeting. Presumably Baker testified to the Grand jury too, but that interview would have been after all of these earlier versions. In none of the publicly available versions

of Baker's story, the assessment affirmatively say he was not representing the DNC or any other client. And in one case, the DOJIG interview, Baker remembered Susman commenting that he had a client. And that version, which Susman wouldn't have had access to before getting it in discovery, matches Susman's public story. So now there's, this is their one witness. Nobody else was there. This indictment is going nowhere. I encourage you to read Marcy. Stay up on the details of this case. And many other things she's got, she's in the details so much. It's amazing. You can check her out at emptywheel.net. All right, it's time for sabotage.

The Justice Department has informed Deutsche Bank that the German lender may have violated a criminal settlement when it failed to tell prosecutors about an internal complaint in its asset management arm sustainable investing business, and that's according to people familiar with the matter. The complaint alleged that the asset manager, DWS Group, overstated how much it used environmental social and governance criteria, known by the industry and by in the acronym ESG, to manage its assets.

US authorities learned of the issue in an August Wall Street Journal article rather than from the bank, which had ongoing disclosure and compliance obligations under the early criminal settlement. Now, that criminal settlement was made in January of this year under Rosen, Trump's Department of Justice. And they came to $130 million settlement instead of charging Deutsche Bank. And one of the key caveats was, we won't charge you, you pay a fine, 130 million, and you just don't crime for a while. You can't break the rules for a while. Well, they did.

So that's what's happening with Deutsche Bank. A final decision has yet to be made on whether or not this justice department who informed Deutsche Bank that they might have violated the rules. Decision has yet to be made if they're going to do anything. And the Department of Justice is issuing an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in the federal register to seek public comment to help inform the department's decision-making prior to its issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking through this process. The department is seeking a preliminary input from the public on regulations as a whole in

response to 19 specific questions. FARA requires persons in the United States who are acting as agents of foreign principles and engaged in certain specified activities to make periodic public disclosures of their relationship with the foreign principle, as well as activities, receipts, and disbursements in support of those activities. Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the activities of such persons in light of their functions as foreign agents.

The act gives the Attorney General the authority to issue regulations, which were last amended in 2007. The effective and efficient enforcement of FARA is critical to facilitate transparency about foreign influence efforts and to support our democracy. That's Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olson of the Justice Department's National Security Division. He goes on to say, we are pleased to begin rulemaking by soliciting input from a wide array of stakeholders in FARA, including public interest groups that rely on disclosures of FARA to support their mission.

The department is considering changes to key regulations, including those relating to the scope of the agency, the commercial exemption, the exemptions for persons qualified to practice law, as well as for those engaged only in religious, scholastic or scientific pursuits. The department is also considering changes that would modernize its regulations relating to labeling information materials in light of the significant technological changes that have occurred since regulations were last amended more than a decade ago. Modernization of Ferra's implementing regulations

will further facilitate the department's focus on Ferra enforcement to ensure transparency in U.S. democratic processes. The department welcomes comments from's practicing law in this area, public interest in transparency groups, and anyone else with an interest in the proper administration and enforcement of fair disclosure and labeling requirements. And with that, it's time for the fantasy indictment league. I'm going to be a plaintiff!

No, it is going to be a plaintiff! I'm a dick a dinosaur! No it is gonna be okay. I'm gonna be a dinosaur! I'm gonna be a dinosaur! I'm gonna be a dinosaur! I'm gonna be a dinosaur! I'm gonna be a dinosaur! I'm gonna be a dinosaur! I'm gonna be a dinosaur! I'm gonna be a dinosaur! I'm gonna be a dinosaur!

I'm gonna be a dinosaur! Alright, this week I am going with Maddie Matt Gaetz and his buddy Engels and Greenberg's friend L.A.K. who had a really weird contract for not doing anything with Greenberg's tax office. I'm going to do Trump for obstruction. I'm still hammering on that, Mueller Volume 2. And I'm going to go junior Ivanka and Eric in the Manhattan DA's probe. He as of last month has empaneled a brand new six month grand jury. I'm going to add Rudy and Tone Zigg and I'll go with Derek Harvey. Why not?

Anunezade, who assisted Rudy and Ukraine Burisma scandal. So those are my picks. And that is our show. Thanks again to Jill Winebanks, thanks to Marcy Wheeler for her and intrepid reporting. Be sure to check out the latest MSW book club episode on Here, Right Matters, written by Alexander Vindman. And that's out today, that episode, and the latest daily beans pod, which will be out tomorrow. And until then, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, and take care of your mental health. I've been AG, and this is Mola Shiro.

Mola Shiro is written and produced by Allison Gill in partnership with MSW Media. Sound designed in engineering or by Molly Hockey, Jesse Egan is our copywriter and our art and web designer by Joelle Reader at Moxie Design Studios. Mollershy Road is a proud member of MSW Media, a group of creator-owned podcasts focused on news, justice and politics. For more information, visitswmedia.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? All right, 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 4K and you're, for some reason, listening to What We're Drinking with Dan Dunn. What do you mean for some reason, Will 4K? 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, 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 Aunties, and you're listening to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn. Let me try one more time, come on. Is that right?

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

you