Jack - Volume 2 - Episode 2 (feat. Andrew Weissmann)

Episode Date: May 16, 2021

This week we have even MORE news related to the Mueller case than we did last week and I’ll be speaking with top Mueller prosecutor, lead of team Manafort during the investigation, and author of the book Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation, Andrew Weissmann.Follow Our Guest on Twitter:Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_)Author, Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller InvestigationFollow AG on twitter:Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote)https://patreon.com/thedailybeansPromo Codes Visit http://betterhelp.com/AG and join the over 800,000 people taking charge of their mental health with the help of an experienced professional. Special offer for Mueller, She Wrote listeners, get 10% off your first month. The traitors are easy to spot. PREVAIL shows you how. Check out PREVAIL with Greg Olear everywhere you get your podcasts. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/prevail-with-greg-olear/id1553506699

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 had to stay forward with somebody else's money. So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships

with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what I said. That's obviously what our position is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time, or two, and 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 Mollershi Rope. Volume 2 profession I'm a capitalist. Hello and welcome to Muller She wrote volume 2, I'm your anonymous host A.G. And we have even somehow more news related to the Mueller case than we did last week. And I'm very happy and proud to announce that I will be speaking with top Mueller prosecutor. He was a lead for team M, team Manifort during the investigation. He's also the author of the book Where Law Ends inside the Mueller investigation, Andrew Weissman.

But before we speak with him, we have a lot of stuff to get to, so let's jump in with just the facts. Hey, everybody, so we learned this week that the Biden administration and Don McGahn, former White House counsel, under Donald Trump, have reached an agreement from McGann to provide testimony to Congress, which is signaling an end to a year's long standoff in the courts. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals was set to hear oral arguments on Bonk in this case on May 19th, but the House Judiciary Committee and the Executive Branch asked the court to

remove the case from the calendar to allow the agreed upon testimony to take place. They made sure to stipulate that former President Donald Trump is not party to the case, nor is he party to the agreement. We're going to ask Andrew Weissman why that was included a little bit later in the show. Now Trump could try to intervene here, right? He's always done by exerting executive privilege, which could raise novel questions about a former president's ability

to do so. Now there is some rare precedent from a 1977 case called Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, where the Supreme Court ruled that former president Nixon, he was the former president at the time, could exert executive privilege over White House documents being handed over to Congress, but that precedent is limited because the case was over documents, not testimony from a person. Additionally, we now have the full agreement

and it states that McGann will only be asked questions about the public portions of the Mueller report. It would seem like executive privilege wouldn't apply to public portions of the Mueller report since they're public. Members of Congress also can ask him to confirm what he told Mueller and ask him if it was accurate. The transcribed interview will be made public, but the, I mean, the initial interview will not be seen by the public, but the transcript will be made public. And I believe they have seven days. I'll go over that when I go over the specific pieces of this agreement.

But I think that's better that this isn't public, that this hearing or this interview or this testimony isn't public, Because there's a few reasons. First of all, we don't have to listen to performative Republicans like Jim Jordan trying to get a news max sound bite. Also, if the Attorney General, Merrick Garland decides to or has already decided to prosecute the obstruction of justice charges, we don't want to jeopardize that investigation with public congressional testimony. Remember, Iran Contra.

The only people invited to this party are McGahn, lawyers from McGahn, a lawyer for the House Dems, a lawyer for the House Republicans, and a lawyer for the DOJ, and members of the House Judiciary Committee. People who are not on that committee or lawyers for the parties are not invited. A transcript will be generated and reviewed and then released to the public. Everyone has seven days to review it for accuracy before it's released. And let me read you the scope definition here from the agreement. Quote, information attributed to Mr. McGahn and the publicly available portions of the Mueller report and events that publicly available portions of the Mueller report indicate involve Mr. McGann.

So they're saying here that they can only, like he can only answer questions about information attributed to him in the publicly available portions of the report. Communications between McGann and other executive branch officials that are not disclosed in the publicly available portions of the Mueller report are outside the scope of this interview. They can also available portions of the Mueller report are outside the scope of this interview.

They can also ask him whether the Mueller report accurately reflects Mr. McGahn's statements to the special counsel's office and whether those statements were truthful. Mr. McGahn will be free to decline to answer any questions outside of the agreed upon scope of questioning and counsel from the Department of Justice may instruct Mr. McGann not to answer such questions. And then the agreement directly addresses executive privilege. No assertions, it says, of executive privilege will be made with respect to information provided by Mr. McGann to the special counsel and attributed to Mr. McGann in the publicly available portions of the Mueller report.

But counsel from the Department of Justice otherwise retains the right to assert executive privilege. The committee retains its rights to challenge any assertion of privilege. So what is the point of all this? I have some theories. We know the House Judiciary reissued the McGann-Sapina after the old one expired when the new Congress came in. And let me just read you really quickly my Twitter thread that I penned about all this. It starts with, here's a thread, the Department

of Justice may be able to indict Trump for obstruction of justice because of Bob Mueller. We've just learned that the Department of Justice under Merrick Garland has reached an agreement on the testimony of Don McGann. I go on to say, we don't know what the agreement is because when I wrote this on May 11th, we didn't know the details of the agreement. But I said, we know it was made without consulting Trump and that he isn't party to the agreement. Plus, Ted Liu has tweeted that he looks forward to McGann answering their questions. So it seems there will be testimony. I go on to say, many are concerned, McGann will simply not recall anything,

but that would be considerably difficult given the documented depositions taken by Mueller and outlined in his report. Many asked why Mueller bothered with an investigation if he knew he wasn't going to indict Trump the whole time, and Mueller responded that it was necessary to document the evidence and take testimony while everything was fresh in the minds of the witnesses.

That's about to come in very fucking handy, wouldn't you say. Many others said Mueller failed because he refused to say that Trump criminally obstructed justice. The fact that he didn't is also about to pay off. Had Mueller accused Trump of a crime without Trump being able to defend himself in a court of law, Donnie could walk free on appeal. Finally, many were upset that Mueller didn't follow the money. Had he, he could and probably would have been fired, and we wouldn't have the supporting evidence to properly question McGann two years after the fact. Now, a lot of people replied to this particular tweet saying,

well, yeah, but, I mean, had he been fired, that would have been obstruction of justice. Yes, true, but there wouldn't have been anyone to investigate that and get all the testimony while it was fresh in everyone's mind. Nor would the Senate have convicted him. They didn't convict him of insurrection. They didn't convict him of the clear violation of law when he withheld aid to Ukraine. I continue to say, and this is my final

tweet. So if Congress makes a criminal referral of obstruction to this attorney general, based on McGann's testimony, with the supporting evidence in the Mueller report, we could possibly see an indictment or four of the former guy, all because Mueller quote unquote failed. I did add a tweet saying the McGann agreement is out. As I suspected, the Mueller report is key. I know you're probably upset. This won't be public, but it doesn't need to be if Garland does the right thing.

Now additionally, after I published this tweet, many people asked me, why Merrick Garland needs this testimony, if it's just confirming what's in the Mueller report, and I'll ask Andrew Weisman what he thinks about that later in the show. But my guess, here's my guess, by allowing Congress to make a criminal referral for obstruction of justice, that sort of provides cover for Merrick Garland. No doubt we will hear Republicans, no matter, whale, that Garland is on a witch hunt and that this is a political hit job. But if a referral is made, Garland can reply to those criticisms by saying, hey, a congressional

committee told me to look into this. I didn't do this on my own. And I, you know, I don't care how he does it. But I think Merrick Garland needs to indict Trump for those obstruction of justice charges. Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office? Yes. You believe that he committed, you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office. Yes. If it's good enough for super conservative Bob Mueller, I think

it should be good enough for Merrick Garland. And as Joyce Vance says, accountability is key to restore the faith that the Justice Department is doing justice, which we have lost over the past several years. Both parties in the McGann Agreement have agreed to give another status update to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in just 30 days, June 11th. So this appears to be moving fast, which is good because the statute of limitations on obstruction of justice is up in about a year. So an indictment, if it was going to happen, would have to happen before that time expires. I'll be right back with more news, and then later, again, I said I'll be speaking with

former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissman about the McGann agreement, so stay with us. Hey everybody, it's A.G. from Mollyshe Road, and this portion of the pod is brought to you by BetterHelp. They provide professional, it's A.G. from Mollyshe Road and this portion of the pod is brought to you by BetterHelp. They provide professional, convenient online counseling. We know life is an amazing, precious gift, but sometimes it can be very overwhelming, unpredictable, stressful, it can cause anxiety, and when I'm feeling the pressure and anxiety of tough situations, I try to remember I do not have to face them alone. And neither do you, so if you're dealing with anything preventing you from living your

best life, I really highly recommend BetterHelp. BetterHelp provides professional counseling to help you navigate life's challenges. It's not a crisis line or self-help, it is licensed professional therapy done securely online. They assess your needs and match you with your own licensed professional therapist and you can start communicating in under 24 hours. As you know, I've had my own challenges with anxiety and post-traumatic stress and I really know how important it is to seek help rather than to try to take it on by yourself. And I really love how convenient, better-help services are. I can do it from home and it's available for clients worldwide.

You can log into your account anytime and send messages to your counselor and you get timely and thoughtful responses. Plus, you can schedule weekly video or phone sessions. And better-help is committed to facilitating great therapeutic matches too, so they make it easy and free to change your counselor if you want to. And of course it's more affordable and traditional offline counseling and financial aid available. So visit their website and read some testimonials like this one from user AD who says, Doctorhood has been great from the first session until now.

Months later she's helped tremendously with mitigating my stress and anxiety. She helps me see different perspectives and makes me feel seen and heard. I'm better able to understand and process my emotions thanks to Dr. Hood's help. So visit betterhelp.com slash AG. That's better help, H-E-L-P. And join the over 800,000 people taking charge of their mental health with the help of an experienced professional. Special offer from Moller She Wrote listeners. Get 10% off your first month at betterhelp.com slash AG.

Hey everybody, welcome back. There's more news. This one is from Betsy Wooder Swan at Polithelp.com slash AG. Hey everybody, welcome back. There's more news. This one is from Betsy Wooder Swan at Politico. She says, US officials suspect that a notorious Russian spy agency may be behind alleged attacks that are causing mysterious health issues among US government personnel across the world.

And that's according to three current and former officials with direct knowledge of these discussions. Officials do not have a smoking gun, linking Russia's military intelligence, the GRU, to the suspected directed energy incidents. The intelligence community has not reached a consensus or made a formal determination. However, officials have told lawmakers

they have intensified their investigation in recent weeks to include all 18 federal intelligence agencies and that they're focused on the GRU's potential involvement. Now, victims of the suspected attacks report symptoms consistent with Havana syndrome. Those are the incidents in 2016 in which a number of American spies and diplomats experienced residual headaches, loss of balance and hearing, ringing and pressuring their ears and sometimes long-term brain damage. The GRU's inclusion as a suspect in the investigation has not been previously reported, and it comes as the Biden administration is working to reassure lawmakers that they are committed to getting to the bottom of the issue and holding those responsible to account officials have already

sounded the alarm to members of Congress about what they see as an increasing threat of directed energy attacks on American personnel. The incidents have allegedly occurred all over the world, including Europe, Miami, Northern Virginia opting to pursue a regular warfare, where it could counter the United States in the seams and the gaps, rather than conventional space. And that's one of the officials told Politico that, microwave pulse weapons, which use a form of electromagnetic radiation to damage targets, are the perfect gray zone weapons, because attribution is difficult. It's hard to pin it down on who did it. So that is expanding.

And we know the new CIA director had testified about this burns. We'll do everything in his power to make sure that the people who have been impacted by this weapon are taken care of. And Prince Michael of Kent, that is Queen Elizabeth's first cousin, said Sunday that he has no special relationship with Putin after an undercover journalistic investigation, claimed he and a close friend were secretly trading on their links with Putin for profit, selling access to Putin. The report centers around undercover recordings of a Zoom meeting involving Prince Michael, his friend and business partner Simon Isaacs, whose title is Marquess of Reading, and two undercover journalist posing as executives of a fake South Korean company that invests in gold.

The investigation by the Sunday Times in the UK on Channel 4 does not allege Prince Michael or Isaacs took part in any illegal activity. But according to the Sunday Times, their undercover report says the fictitious South Korean Company was looking to hire a royal to market its investment service and wrote in a letter it was planning to set up a Moscow office and offered to hire the prince as an advisor to use his quote-unquote excellent contacts in Russia. Prince Michael spokesperson in a Sunday statement said he never represented Buckingham Palace in Russia or elsewhere. The statement also added, Prince Michael receives no public funding and earns his own living through a consultancy company that he has run for over 40 years. There are royal highnesses pay a market rent and fees for their home at Kensington Palace. In a

statement to the Sunday Times, the Marques of Redding said, I made a mistake and over-promised and for that I am truly regretful. We'll have more on that as the story develops. And here's an old flashback from from Muller She wrote the original. I remember the Comey 5, it became the Comey 6 after we learned Dana Bente was involved. But those were the 6 people that FBI director at the time, Komi shared his contemporaneous notes about the loyalty dinner and other encounters with Trump, with shortly after Trump had taken office.

The others in the Komi 5 were McCabe, Gattis, Bodich, James Baker, and Rabicki. And all of them were either pushed out or fired. Well, Bodich was the only one that was left, and we just learned this week that Bill Barr almost resigned when Trump threatened to fire Bodich and Rey. He wanted to replace Bodich with Kosh Patel. Quote, ushered into the Roosevelt Room, Barr encountered Johnny McIntee.

I'm going to take a break, pause here here and remind you who McIntee was. He was the college kid who was running the presidential personnel office, the PPO. That's the one where we talked about they were, you know, it was like a frat house where they were running around icing each other, which means you hide a smear and off ice. And if somebody accidentally stumbles upon it, they have to chug it. That's, that's this guy. So ushered into the Roosevelt Room, bar encountered Johnny McIntee, the former college quarterback

who had become a top trump aid. McIntee introduced Bill Barr to Bill Evinina, a top counterintelligence official in the administration who had previously worked at the FBI. Barr said what's the point of this meeting, but he was told Evinina could be the replacement for Christopher Ray if Trump decided to fire him. At that point, Barr turned on his heels and left the room. The episode, which has not previously been reported and was described to Insider by a person briefed on the matter, was seen in some corners of the Trump administration as the closest Ray came ever to getting fired. But here's the buried lead, right? The plot also involved firing deputy FBI director David Bodich. That was when Barr threatened to resign. That was the

bridge too far, the Bodich firing or attempted firing. And that's according to a source briefed on the meetings. So that's what happened there. Now speaking of Barr, the deadline for Merrick Garland to decide whether he's going to hand over that bill bar OLC memo that Andrew McCabe and I talked about on last week's Mueller she wrote or whether he's going to try to appeal it. That deadline is tomorrow Monday, May 17th and his decision could be indicative of his appetite for accountability here. I'll be right back with the head prosecutor on team M that M. for Manafort during the Mueller investigation and author of the book, Where Law Ends Inside the Mueller Investigation. Andrew Weissman, stay with us.

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 Rubels. In 2019, I launched Proveil, a bi-weekly column about Trump and Putin, … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Over the last two years that I've been here, I've been accused of all different types of things and all of those things I've turned out to be false. I'll turn to the facts. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did.

Sometimes I have too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. Trump may be gone, but the damage he rock will take years to fully understand. The best is yet to come! Join me in a revolving crew of contributors and guests as we try to make sense of it all. This is Pravee. Everybody, welcome back.

Joining me today is a formerly prosecutor in the Mueller Investigation Special Council's office and author of the book Where Law Ends Inside the Mueller Investigation. Please welcome Andrew Weissman. the book Where Law Ends inside the Mueller investigation, please welcome Andrew Weissman. Andrew, thanks for joining me today. Thanks for being here. I'm so glad I have you here because I have some questions about this McGahn agreement between the executive branch

and Don McGahn, and we know McGahn and the Biden administration, they reach this agreement that he will be interviewed by the House Judiciary behind closed doors, through, though a transcript, will be made available to the public shortly after. And McGann is limited to answering questions only about the publicly available portions of the Mueller report. So the big question is, why do we need his testimony

if it's just going to match what we already know from the findings of the Mueller investigation? So that's a great question. So the first part of that, the easy answer is that we don't know yet that it will match what's in the Mueller report because there's a huge part of this country that don't think that the Mueller report

is worth the paper it's printed on. And so having McGann testify under oath that it's accurate or the insubstance it is accurate is a benefit. And for people to hear that in the same way that if you were to put somebody in the grand jury and that way, there's a transcript from that person in their own words.

And you're not relying on it being filtered by investigators, whether prosecutors or agents. That's one benefit. Second, I don't in any way think it's a bad idea to have the compromise, which is doing this first in a sealed proceeding, which allows for lawyers from the White House to make claims to executive privilege that then can be sort of hashed out. That sort of happens in all sorts of settings where there is potentially grand jury material where there's potentially attorney client privilege material. So that allows a way to make sure that people can be heard and that can be

fleshed out and you don't have the risk of it spilling out improperly. Even though, of course, what's not good about that is, you know, people like to see the person testifying. On the other hand, this could be videotaped and you could, you could, you could, it could happen. It's just, it is not the same, but it does, it's a balancing, and that's what I took to be this is a compromise. And that typically is what happens between the White House and Congress. There is this compromise.

You didn't see that in the prior administration, but that is typically what happens in Republican and Democratic administrations. The part that's, as we discussed, the part that's that is confusing is the idea that the witness can only say what is already in the public record seems problematic to me. Like, I could understand if it said those topics are what we should focus on. And we can't sort of go into new topics.

So though, I have to say why am God's green earth? Why not? I mean, it's Congress, they're an investigative body. Why shouldn't they be able to ask him those questions? Especially since they worked at this compromise of doing it in a sealed proceeding first. But saying that you can't go beyond what's in the record, so imagine if he thinks that the wording is slightly wrong or it's not exactly the words he would have used in the that's in the Mueller report and he would use it differently which could easily happen. The Mueller report wasn't trying to be a verbatim transcript. What's he limited to saying? No, it's not what I would say, but that if he's as well as the gist correct, he can say, well, I can't answer to that.

Like, it just seems like it could become very awkward, very quickly, depending on how narrowly that agreement is construed in terms of how binding it is. So I think that it remains to be seen just how that part of this works itself out. So those are all of my reactions to your questions. Yeah, I find it odd. Although, I mean, the only thing I could think of was,

maybe, because if Congress, if the Democrats in the judiciary want to make a criminal referral for obstruction of justice to the Department of Justice, that this particular process might actually provide cover for Merritt Garland, because either way, regardless of, you know, if he's investigating this obstruction, Republicans are going to say it's a witch hand, it's a political hit job. But at least this way, he can say, ah, ah, you know, this, I didn't, a bipartisan committee in Congress told me to look into this and maybe that provides

them a little bit of cover, but I don't know. Otherwise, it just seems like an interesting exercise. But if both parties didn't want to do it or weren't into it, I don't think they would have reached an agreement. Yeah, I mean, there definitely, if there is a bipartisan referral, sure. That's a big if, because you could agree to this, but not to a referral at the end of it. And I would hope that this Justice Department

doesn't need that kind of quote cover. I mean, this is why they're paid the big bucks. And that's a joke, because of course they're not. But it's like, you know, you're there to do the right thing. And you know, I, I, I don't know Eric Garland that well, but I do know Lisa Monaco. And I've seen her make tough calls where her view is like, you know what, I guess that's right, I will own it.

And that's why I'm here. And you know what, if I've made a mistake, people will take me to task for it. And they should. But I feel like she's somebody who doesn't need the quote cover. She would just do what she thinks is right. Now, do you think Trump could intervene here? I mean, there's an old precedent where Nixon was allowed

to block white house documents, the release to Congress after he was no longer president. But this is different because this is a witness, this is a witness testimony, an autonomous person who can make that decision themselves because you know, both parties are asking to have this taken off the court docket. But I mean, could Trump intervene here? I mean, I expect that he would, if he could. could Trump intervene here? I mean, I expect that he would if he could. Well, it's hard to see with respect to executive privilege why Trump needs to be heard

when the White House has the institutional, the same institutional concern, and we'll be looking at it that way. I've been in that position where I've been a lawyer for an agency. And what you think about is you think about it as an institutional matter. You don't think about is this good or bad for any particular

administration. You think about the precedent you're setting. And I'm confident that that is what would, that's the lens through which it'll be viewed. So I don't see how any former president has particular standing to raise that issue when the executive privilege is one that I think is earned by the current White House. Yeah, especially if all of what he might claim executive

to us, you know, exert executive privilege over is publicly available in the public portions of the Mueller report, you know? Well, there's that. If it's definitely limited to what Don Gantt told us then, you know, that's already been made public. And, you know, they are the critical pieces not that Don Gantt told us because that's executive branch to executive branch.

So that's not really where the waiver occurs. It's that the material in the Mueller report was it public and that executive privilege won't govern what's there That's the waiver so at that point It's really hard for them to say wait a second now that we don't like you know hearing the witnesses first hand That's executive privilege. I don't think that's gonna flop Yeah, and we know much of volume two was volume one was the heavily redacted volume. So I think much of volume two was was out there for everybody to read. But you told Lawrence O'Donnell on the last word last night that we shouldn't probably expect an indictment for obstruction of justice from from this Department of Justice.

And with accountability being so important, I think, to restoring faith in the department. Why don't you think Garland will go that route? So let me first say, I agree with you, and I read an op-ed over the summer and then you have times about that, that I think it's really important for presidents to be held to account, and that especially since the Department of Justice

cannot buy 10 policies and diet as sitting president, it really, if you, if you then after the presence out of office say, well, let's just move on, you then are de facto creating a presidency that is above the law. And there, just, I always think, try to like to tell people, think about this, remove Trump's name from this. Just any president, it's such a terrible precedent to have that. And if you have substantial evidence of any president obstructing justice into a special counsel investigation, that's even more reason to be looking into it. Because if you don't vindicate that interest, then don't bother

appointing a next special counsel because you're basically de facto saying it's okay to obstruct them. Having said all that, the reason I think it's unlikely is, as I mentioned, I don't think that Don McGahn testifying for Congress or not testifying for Congress is something that's going to provide new information to the Department of Justice that has the Mueller report and all of the underlying information, every last piece of it. So if they were interested in pursuing this, I just suspect we would have heard something

because when you do an investigation, you talk to witnesses, you put them in the grand jury and it sort of spills out, not in an illegal way, but in a proper way, because witnesses get called, and witnesses are free to talk about that. So that's the reason that I don't see that. And I also think that the department may be waiting to see what happens with Manhattan.

And that is somewhat understandable. It's sort of a long discussion. It's somewhat understandable because if there is going to be a vindication with respect to sometimes you can imagine that the department saying that may be sufficient given limited resources and other considerations. I'm not sure I totally agree with that, but I expect that that is what's going on. Yeah, that's interesting.

And Joyce Vance actually posited that if a criminal referral is made, that it wouldn't actually probably be Merrick Garland or the Department of Justice bringing those obstruction charges. They probably appoint a special counsel. Maybe that you could go to work for. Before I let you go, I want to ask your opinion on this Office of Legal Counsel memo, not the old one that says you can and died a

sitting president, but this one that bar cited to say that this is why we didn't, you know, our legal people told us that this did not amount to obstruction of justice, which we know is ridiculous because of the good work that the team did there. And tomorrow is the deadline for the Department of Justice to sort of respond to Judge Jackson's opinion, hey, you got to hand that OLC memo, which from reading Jackson's opinion sounds like there's some heavy stuff in there, like pretty, the things that could implicate him. But, you know, they'll decide to either hand that over to crew, which would, who would I assume would make a public or appeal that.

And I was wondering, if you think Garland will, what, how do you think Garland will respond here? So it's, it's a little tricky just because we don't, you know, we obviously don't know what the Jackson saw. She's a fantastic and something, obviously, really upset her. I do think that one thing I will go out and predict is she divided the memo that she sealed the memo that she reviewed into two parts. The first part, I think that they want to kill. She says the whole first part of the memo

is not legal advice at all. And in fact, the government never addressed it. And no one would have known it even existed had she not pressed to read and to be given that. And so if you could tell that really to youth to the vernacular, pistol off. Because she's just like, how could you have hidden this from me? This has nothing to do with legal,

you know, a turning client privilege, and you didn't even address it. And so I think that's gonna be a hard one for the department to say that piece shouldn't be turned over. The second piece, you know, I think there's gonna be sort of an analysis of, you know, did the judge get it right? They won't be looking at it from a political, does it help or hurt it from point of view and confident of that. They're going to be thinking from an institutional point of view. And I've seen that. I've seen the department take views where it's like,

you know, that's not particularly helpful or for particular political cause, but it's like that's the institutional concern. I think they're going to look at it from that lens with an extra piece of, you know, sometimes a court might get something wrong, but you still don't appeal everything that's they get wrong. So they have to think it's like really wrong and a really strong institutional concern. So there is that extra layer. So my sort of uneducated hunch on that,

not having seen it, is that there won't be an appeal of that either. Yeah, because that's, I think what you're talking about is the deliberative process privilege that I know is very important for agencies to be able to discuss things with one another. But yeah, Judge Jackson was extremely clear in succinct and her breakdown about how it didn't meet the burden. This particular document didn't meet the burden for either,

executive privilege or deliberative process. So I think it would be hard for the DOJ to justify that. Yeah. And I think that other pieces, you know, are we going to hear that. Yeah and and I think the other piece is you know are we gonna hear that the attorneys who are still at the department who were taken to task by Judge Jackson whether there's any sort of referral of them you know within the department because I mean she was it was it was pretty scathing. Yeah I agree.. Well, I appreciate your time today, and I hope we get to speak to you again soon.

Everybody check out where law ends inside the Mueller investigation best-selling book, incredible, incredible book, a lot of insights into what happened during the Special Counsel investigation. Andrew Weissman, I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Everybody, stick around. We'll be right back.

Hey, everybody, it's aging, and I am happy and proud to announce that this May 25th, we are launching our very own podcast network. It's called MSW Media and it's going to feature the work of some incredibly talented and intelligent people, including Glenn Kirschner with Justice Matters on topic with Renata Mariotti, prevailed by Greg Oliar, opening arguments with Androtora's and Thomas Smith, the bureau with Frank Fagluzzi, which debuts the same day we launched the network, which is May 25th.

And that's just to name a few. Of course, there's the Daily Beans, Muller She Wrote, and our newest show, Clean Up on Idle 45. Our network is Woman Run, and Veteran Owned, and our mission is to curate news, politics, and justice, and engage voters so we can win in 2022 and beyond. I am so proud of this community and this group of content creators, so please check us out at mswmedia.com

and listen wherever you get your podcasts. All right, it's time for the fantasy and indictment league. Well, I think Trump is going to be indicted by the Manhattan District Attorney. And the reason I think that is because there was a reporting out this week saying that officials in Florida were prepping for it, trying to decide what would happen if Trump were indicted and was in Florida because there's extradition stuff that has to go on. Apparently, DeSantis can investigate extradition papers, but there mean, there is solid, solid longstanding black and white precedent that that his ability or his authority to extradite or not extradite is there's no authority. It's ministerial. He has to constitutionally extradite that prisoner. He can look into the papers. He can try to delay it.

It would be a very bad move, but you know, I don't put anything past anybody, but don't worry. Ultimately, Trump will be extradited. Also, so aside from Trump, I would like to put Matt Gates on there. We just learned this weekend that Joel Greenberg is flipping. He's going to plead guilty to six of the 33 counts, including he's going to, he's going to plead guilty to child sex trafficking, wire fraud, bribery of a public official, a couple of six different things. And they're going to forgive 27 federal indictments, which means, you know, coupled with the fact that he's a child sex trafficker. That means he's got important information to offer the government and he is going to be doing that.

That hearing is tomorrow, Monday, that is the change of plea hearing in the courts. So that's happening. So Gates is on my list. And then I think I'm going to stick with Calludy Rudy and Victoria Tonesing and Derek Harvey, that little trifecta, that fraud-guarantee crowd. I'm leaving DeGenernava off because I want to put Trump on here for now because we'll see what happens with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

Although I think, you know, I thought he would be indicted by the end of April, so I'm a little bit late on that. We'll see what happens. I know they're cornering Weiselberg. There was just a subpoena issued to Weiselberg's grandchildren's school, private school, where apparently Weiselberg and Trump had written a half a million dollar checks for their tuition. Now, it is not a crime to pay someone's tuition, but it is, you know, because that's a gift. You don't have to pay taxes on that.

However, if it's your employer that pays that tuition, like the Trump organization, Weiselberg and Donald, and that is considered income because your employer is paying it, and they think what happened here was that Barry and Weiselberg were trying to avoid paying taxes on that half a million dollars. So we'll see what happens with that. I know that there might be charges,

they might just be using this to get Weisselberg's cooperation. And we know Weisselberg has cooperated on this particular case in the past, in the Southern District of New York when it was a federal case, and member individual one, and Cohen went to prison for it.

Weisselberg signed a non-prosigution agreement and cooperated. So we'll see what happens here. I don't think he'll be given any limited immunity, although that could happen in order to get his testimony. We will see. But so anyway, I'm gonna keep Trump on there and Gates, and then of course Rudy, Tonzig, and Dara Carvey.

Those are my picks for the fantasy indictment league. We will be back next week. We will have the information for you on what happens with the bar OLC memo and anything else that happens this week related to the Mueller investigation. Until then, everyone, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of your mental health and take care of the planet. I've been Road. A collection of independent creator-owned podcasts focused on news, politics, and justice. For more information, visit mswmedia.com 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 Feds wherever you get your podcasts. M-S-O-W Media podcast.