Jack - Volume 2 - Episode 6

Episode Date: June 13, 2021

This week; there's a lot to get to; might want to listen at half speed. Investigating political rivals without a predicate seems very wrong. No? Biden is at the G-7 and will meet with Putin; transcripts of McGahn's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee were released; Steven Calk is back in the news; it looks like Giuliani may have been trying to sell access to Trump; plus the Fantasy Indictment League.Follow Allison Gill on Twitter:https://twitter.com/allisongillWant to support this show and get The Daily Beans and MSW Book Club ad-free?https://dailybeans.supercast.tech/Orhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansPromo Codes:https://BetterHelp.com/AGhttps://www.risescience.com/mswhttps://helixsleep.com/msw

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.

This is Greg Olyar, the author of Dirty Rubles and your listening to Mueller clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what I said. That's obviously what our position is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time, a two in campaign, and I didn't have, not have, communications at the Russians. What do I have to get involved with,

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

No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring. Like all members of the oldest profession I'm a capitalist. Hello and welcome to Muller She Wrote. Volume 2. I'm your host, Alison Gil, the host formerly known as AG. If you'll remember, I used to work for the federal government. My podcast, this podcast was investigated by the Feds. They were monitoring my social media at the highest levels of the Department of Veterans Affairs, possibly higher.

And they fired me by using the old McMolvaney trick of moving my job across country. Remember, he did that with the USDA. I filed a complaint. I should have a decision soon. I'll let you know what they decide. But the fun part was that by firing me, they freed me up from the Hatch Act.

And that allowed me to help raise over half a million dollars for Biden, Harris, and Ossoff and Warnauq in conjunction with several other podcasts. We did that together. So I'm fired. Trump, nah, you're fired. Anyway, there's something very wrong feeling about investigating government officials for political purposes and targeting whistleblowers or going

after those that expose you. And that's what our lead story is about today. And this is going to be a rather long show. It's me by myself. There's going to be a lot of information. You might want to slow it down to half speed. I will sound drunk when you do that, but maybe that makes it more fun. But that's the lead story today has to do with investigating political opponents from the New York Times, Michael Schmidt, who had a starring role in our initial sexy justice calendar

in 2018 and 2019. Quote, we've seen the stories over the past weeks about reporters, records from CNN, Washington Post, and the Times. And we've seen the stories over the past weeks about reporters records from CNN, Washington Post, and the Times. And we've seen all that, right? We've seen that those records were seized. And the new Department of Justice says it will no longer do that. They've just come out to say that.

But now the New York Times has broken a story that Trump officials went after members of Congress. They subpoenaed Apple for data from accounts of at least two members of Congress, their staffers, and their family members, including children. At least it doesn't people tied to the House Intelligence Committee had their records subpoenaed secretly. Shift and Swalwell are the two focal points right now. They were apparently the Department of Justice was hunting for sources of leaks in the Trump-Russia investigation.

We know a little bit about that. Department of Justice apparently found nothing, and we're going to close the investigation. But then, Barr revived the investigations by moving a New Jersey prosecutor to main justice to work on the shift case, and half a dozen others. Now Barr, today, in response to this this story said he was never aware of any of these records, subpoenas or members of congress subpoenas, etc. But he's the one who called this New Jersey guide back. So hmm, then they, you know, they subpoenaed the communications. Now leak investigations are routine, but to my knowledge, there's never been an instance

of the records of lawmakers being seized. And the DOJ got a gag order on Apple, which expired this year, and then Apple informed the members of Congress last month after the gag order expired. Note that the gag order expired after bar and Trump left office. It's of note that Garland's Department of Justice kept this quiet for a while. DC US Attorney, like I said, tried to end the investigation into Schiff and Swahwell until Barr brought in the New Jersey guy to keep it going.

So, you know, why did they want to end that gag order after they left office? Possibly because the only remedy for this kind of abusive power is impeachment. Now, can Trump be impeached for this since he's left office? Yes, we've established that. Although we know the Senate will not vote to convict a former official, that was their excuse for not convicting the former guy for inciting the insurrection.

And that was their only excuse, they said. But can criminal referrals be mead? Yeah, I believe so. I think the, well, I know the Inspector General has the power to conduct criminal investigations, but they don't have the power to bring charges. They would have to be referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution at which point I imagine if Merrick Garland had the appetite to investigate this criminally that a special

or independent council would need to be appointed so that the Department of Justice could keep out of the process and relieve any separation of powers, concerns, or political, which hunt concerns, right? Now Schmidt, who has the Times' byline on this, says that this is what Trump wanted, and the president should not weigh in about criminal investigations. And that's one of the main differences between this and the current DOJ, where I find some fault with what Merrick Garland has made decisions on so far, including the E. Jean Carroll case where they have agreed to represent the former president, the office, not the man, and,

you know, even though they said that the, the, the, the, the, it's reprehensible what he said, that they, it's their obligation to represent him. And then of course the Bill Barr memo, which I thought should have been released in its entirety, I didn't think that the deliberative process, privilege argument stood up to scrutiny, at least not to scrutiny, I saw coming from Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

Now all this is in the face of Trump whining about Obama spying on his campaign during the Russian investigation, which never happened. The FISA, you know, the FISA warring against Carter Page that everybody was up in arms about on the right, that was for Carter Page. But it was after he left the Trump campaign, and it was signed off by Rod Rosenstein. And the IG, the Inspector General Horowitz, said that there was a criminal predicate for

running the Russia investigation and the FISA warrant was not politically motivated, nor was the Russia investigation. He concluded that in his report about Crossfire Hurricane, which was the Trump Russia investigation. That same Inspector General has now been tasked by Biden's Department of Justice to investigate the Trump-era Department of Justice to investigate the Trump era Department of Justice to look for appropriateness to verify that what they did followed the policies of looking for leaks and a leak investigation. It didn't.

It can't have. It was Lisa Monaco, by the way, Deputy Attorney General, who asked Inspector General, the Inspector General Horowitz to investigate this. In addition to the IG investigation, Senator Schumer and Durban have issued a statement saying former Attorney General Barr and sessions and other officials who were involved must testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath. If they refuse, they are subject to being subpoenaed and compelled to testify under oath. In addition, the Department of Justice must provide information and answers to the Judiciary Committee, which will vigorously investigate

this abuse of power. Now, what happens when barn sessions refuse to comply with a subpoena? We've seen this trick before, with folks like McGann who spent years fighting subpoenas in court. We do not have years. Though some feel that since McGahn did eventually testify to the House Judiciary upon that agreement that they made, that might make the process run through the courts faster, or the fact that this Department of Justice might not step in and try to stop the subpoena from happening. But don't forget, before we even get to the subpoena discussion, because of the balance of power in the Senate, 50-50, and because of the balance of power in the senate fifty fifty and because of the power sharing agreement you would actually need a republican

on the house on the senate judiciary to vote for the subpoena according to the power sharing agreement only the homeland security and government affairs subcommittee on investigations can unilaterally issue a subpoena by the chair the democratic chair the judiciary committee requires a majority vote or the ranking members sign off. Now ranking member is none other than Chuck Grassley. So we would need his vote or the vote of one of the other Republicans on the committee to move forward with a subpoena.

Republicans on the committee include Chuck Grassley, he's the ranking member, Lindsey Graham, no way, John Cornyn, no way, Mike Lee, probably not. Ted Cruz, no, Ben Sass, maybe? Josh Holly, hell no. Tom Cotton, no, uh, John Kennedy, no. How are all these douchebags on this committee? Tom Tillis, nope, nope, we've seen him and Marsha Blackburn, no way.

Sass might might be someone who would vote for it. Perhaps Chuck Grassley, the ranking member, I don't know. Now, is this an abuse of power? Yes. And the remedy for an abuse of power is impeachment. But either way, it's important that the truth come out, regardless of consequences. We may not necessarily be looking for a crime

or a criminal referral or an impeachment here. We just want to know what happened. But let's play this out. Let's say bar and sessions are asked to appear. They refuse. Let's say Grassley or Sass vote for a subpoena and they're subpoenaed. And then bar and session sued a block it. But now, as I said before, the Department of Justice won't be arguing on behalf of bar and sessions not to appear. So the court may order them to appear much faster than the ignored subpoenas we saw under the bar department of justice. And then of course, we have the whole thing where McGann agreed to testify that might be an argument. I don't know,

but we'll find out if we can get a subpoena issued. Now, I talked about one difference between this DOJ and that being a criminal predicate for an investigation. Now, I talked about one difference between this DOJ and that being a criminal predicate for an investigation. Now, the second difference between this Department of Justice and the previous one, as far as investigations are involved, is that there was no predicate for the investigations into Schiff and Swalwell and their families and children. That's the difference between me saying this is wrong and saying that I think the Department of Justice needs to investigate obstruction of justice by Trump or other crimes committed by members of

Congress like Nunes and Ron Johnson. There's criminal predicate there. There's probable cause, right? Those cases have sufficient criminal predicate for investigation. The shifts while well investigations do not, or at least there is no known evidence at this time of there being probable cause. But the DOJ didn't find anything. DCU S attorney under bar said,

and let's close this down. Bar said, nah, bring in New Jersey. That's what makes this such an unprecedented abuse of power. No criminal predicate. And I want to make clear, it's perfectly okay to think that Garland made a bad call on the bar memo and the EGIN CAROL case, which I do. While simultaneously thinking they made the right call

on having the inspector general investigate the shift swallow cases. But again, why did Garland continue to honor those gag orders? Was it because they knew they were about to expire and could maintain their arms length on getting involved until the news came out? Now, Friday, the Department of Justice Inspector General has confirmed that it will be investigating this. So, as I said before, Lisa Monaco called for it. DOJ said, we'll do it.

DOJIG is different from the Inspector General by the way that determined the Lafayette Square tear-gassing of peaceful protesters was not for the Trump photo op at the church. That was the Department of Interior Inspector General. This Inspector General's Department of Justice inspector general Horowitz, the same guy that investigated and cleared the oranges of the Russia probe. Like I said, saying there was enough criminal predication to launch that probe. It's the same inspector general that said, Komi didn't violate any laws and it's the same inspector general that found the errors in the Carter Page FISA, which there were,

though nothing again, like I said, that was politically motivated. Horowitz has been there since 2012. I have faith he'll do a good job here, though I sure would like to see the results of his investigation into the New York FBI field office leaks. That's a centered around the weener laptop. Those are the ones Rudy Giuliani alluded to on Fox News in October 2016 when he said he was working with current and former FBI officials on an October surprise. My beans are still on a guy named Callstrom.

As the former FBI official he was working with, we know Tone Ziga DeGenerva were also involved in that investigation. We still haven't seen that IG report. It was due out a couple of years ago and was presumably blocked by Trump and Barr. We'd love to see that. Now in other news, Biden is at the G7 summit and is set to meet with Putin later in the month. And former guest of Mullah Shirod and former ambassador to Russia, Mike McFaul, had some thoughts on this meeting between Biden and Putin in an op-ed in the Washington Post. As President Vladimir Putin's Kremlin aides prepare their boss for his meeting with Biden.

In Geneva later this month, you can be sure their talking points won't include suggestions for improving relations with the United States. Putin has rarely walked into a meeting with any head of state with the aim of improving relations. That certainly wasn't his goal. In meeting with the US and EU leaders after 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, intervened in eastern Ukraine and permanently ended aspirations for cordial relations with the West. In Putin's worldview, the US is Russia's main adversary. Putin therefore will not be offering Biden creative initiatives for win-win outcomes. Yeah, that's what I figured and that's what we all kind of figured. He goes on to say Biden's national security team should take the same approach.

And observers of the Geneva Summit should adjust their analytical framework for evaluating winners and losers accordingly. Biden's goal should not be improved relations with Russia. Instead, Biden and his team should define concrete security, economic and value-related goals they seek to achieve, and then brace for disappointment. In foreign policy engagements, such as Geneva, it's a means to concrete ends, not a goal in and of itself. At a minimum, high-level meetings can reduce misperceptions between countries,

a worthy of modest goal for Biden and Putin, given the low number of contacts between US and Russian senior officials these days, right? Now, as a means, engagement between leaders can also produce momentum toward mutually beneficial objectives or what they refer to as deliverables in state department talk. At earlier moments in US-Russian relations,, the agenda of when win outcomes was large, being it cooperating on arms control and the Reagan-Gorbača-Fera, working together on domestic reforms and international integration during Clinton-Yeltsin years, or fighting global terrorism

during the early Bush Putin period. When President Obama met his counterpart Ditri Medvedyev, concrete summit objectives, including the new start treaty. That's the strategic arms reduction treaty, multilateral sanctions against Iran, securing supply routes through Russia to US soldiers in Afghanistan, and increasing trade investment and people to people ties. None of these agenda items will be on the table in Geneva. Putin's recent belligerent behavior abroad and growing repression at home makes such cooperation impossible.

He needs the United States to be an enemy. There is however a narrow agenda available for bilateral cooperation. The two leaders could launch strategic stability talks Biden and Putin have rightly extended new start, but a subsequent arms control treaty will be difficult to complete before a new start expires five years from now, since non-strategic nuclear weapons and new delivery vehicles must be part of the new deal. But we need to start now,

according to McFall. Next, possibly a series of consulate closures and diplomatic expulsions, as well as reducing hiring of Russian staffers at U.S. diplomatic missions have brought public diplomacy and visa issuance to a halt pretty much basically. Biden and Putin should reverse this trend. And that's it. That's the cooperative bilateral agenda, according to Mike McFall. The remaining time in Geneva should focus on issues of disagreement. Putin's persecution of opposition leaders, Navalny, for example, the detention of Americans, Belarus, Ukraine, cyber attacks, assassination attempts, microwave radiation attacks. The multilateral agenda is potentially broader working together with their international partners by an imputant should come to cooperating on stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program,

providing humanitarian assistance to Syrians, fulfilling the Minsk agreement on Eastern Ukraine, maybe working together on COVID-19 and climate change, but even in multilateral settings, however, the possibilities for cooperation are limited. So what Mike McFall is saying here is even when you bring in the rest of the EU leaders to talk about not just what US and Russia are going to do, but what everyone needs to work on. Once it's over Biden and his team should not hope to forget about Russia, they cannot freeze US-Russia relations in place to focus on greater challenges like China. As Putin recently proved by amassing Russian soldiers on the Ukrainian border or unleashing more cyber attacks, he won't allow that to happen.

Nor should Biden's Russia policy become a derivative of his China policy. For Biden to pursue his own version of the Nixon goes to China's strategy, would be a huge mistake. It won't work, he mourns. We'll be watching. What comes out of the Nixon goes to China's strategy would be a huge mistake. It won't work, he mourns. We'll be watching what comes out of the meeting. We should keep in mind, and this is me talking now, that, well, at least it was better than Helsinki is a low, low bar. Now we should always remember, thank God we're not in that situation anymore, that's

so much better than Helsinki, but that shouldn't be the only goal. Alright, we'll be right back with some more news including the McGanty testimony transcript. Stay with us. Hey everybody, it's Allison in this episode of Mola She Wrote Is Brought To You by Helix Sleep. Head and shoulders, the absolute best mattress I've ever owned and I have tried all the top brands. You've heard me over the years singing the praises of my Helix mattress. So Jordan loves hers, Mandy and Joelle say it's the best mattress they've ever had. It's like sleeping on a cloud.

I have to agree. I concur. I've never slept better. And it's not just because the orange menace is out of the White House. It's because Helix knows you're unique. And we all have different ways of sleeping. So Helix created an online sleep quiz designed to match you with your perfect mattress. I was matched with the Helix midnight, for example, because I'm a side sleeper, and I like a

medium firm bed. And I've never slept better. But you don't have to take my word for it, or Jordan or Mandy's or Joels. Helix was awarded number one best overall mattress pick of 2020 by GQ and Myard magazine, and Helix has been recommended by multiple sleep leading chiropractors and doctors of sleep medicine as a solution for improving sleep. They have a 10-year warranty, 10-10 years, and you get to try it out for 100 sleeps, risk-free. They'll even come and pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will love it.

So just go to helixleap.com slash MSW. Take their simple two-minute sleep quiz, and helix will match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life. And right now, he looks as offering up to $200 off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners at helixleap.com slash MSW. That's helixleap.com slash MSW for up to $200 off all mattress orders and two free pillows. Hi everybody, welcome back. After two long years of court battles, McGann and the House

Judiciary finally came to an agreement to have McGann testify about Trump obstruction of justice, taking the case off the court docket and hopefully giving it some teeth, giving, well, giving some teeth to congressional subpoenas in the future. I don't know. We'll find out. As we reported, the agreement said that each side would have seven days to review the testimony and then the public would get a look once all parties agreed. They released the transcript this week.

I've read through it. And though NADLAR said there was new information, and so did Madeline. They, you know, Madeline Dean said there was new information that came to light. It really wasn't that I could see. What seems to be new is that McGahn confirmed the notes of his chief of staff Donaldson about some of the obstruction instances, but McGahn did confirm everything in the publicly available portions in the Mueller report. And for those of us who read it, they'll, well, you'll find this information given by McGahn,

pretty much everything we already knew, that Trump obstructed justice. I asked Bard McQuade what the point of the exercise was, and she said, it helps set the precedent, the congressional subpoenas have teeth, and I know that you, you know, we're about to learn whether or not that's true, whether, you know, if Durban and Schumer can subpoena bar in sessions

to testify, I think, get that one vote in the Senate judiciary about those corrupt investigations into, you know, swalls, big e-swalls, and Adam Schiff. But I do have a bit of a summary about the McGann testimony. I have a short summary, and I have kind of a long summary. A short summary is Republicans went, Russia is stupid, and the Democrats were asking about the obstruction of justice instances. McGann conceded to all of them the end. Now they're open to asking about May 17th meeting, where Trump said, I'm fucked, my

presidency's fucked, and I think Miss Itzel was also doing some questioning here. And McGann said he's solely relying on the report and the Democrats direct him to the portions of the report where McGann told Mueller what he'd seen and heard. McGann eventually agrees that Trump was not happy with the appointment of a special counsel. That took like 15 minutes to get him to say that. What a dick.

They go on to discuss the meeting where McGahn told Trump that his assertions of Mueller's conflicts of interest were silly and not real. He recalled that conversation and said it was true and that Mueller had been cleared by the ethics department to serve as special counsel. You remember because he was like, oh, he golf fees.

And these conflicts of interests that are conflicts of interest that Trump kept harping on at this point the the Dems are establishing that Trump was not happy with the appointment of Mueller and that Mueller was qualified to serve a special counsel with no conflicts of interest That's sort of laying the basis for obstruction of justice Again establishes these facts as truth Additionally, McGann confirmed Trump wanted him to reach out to Rosenstein about his perceived conflicts of interest, and McGann said, yeah, that did happen. He told me to call Rosenstein, and I didn't want to. They asked him what Trump wanted to convey, wanted him to convey to Rosenstein, after the ethics council had already cleared Mueller.

Generally, one concern in the report reflects this, that director Mueller had been a partner at Wilmer Hale. Again, says Wilmer Hale was also representing Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, and how could a partner from Wilmer Hale then take over an investigation that may or may not concern, you know, those individuals in some capacity? And I think this is what the report is referring to, that Department of Justice looked at that. There was another issue of some sort of golf course dues, and that was something like that, and the report reflects that.

It's not the sort of thing, I think, the counsel to the president would raise. It's the sort of thing. Counsel to the president is an official lawyer, represents the president in an official capacity. He's not the lawyer to raise a conflict that sounds personal or a business concern. That would be more for a personal lawyer to raise. And as the report reflects, that was my thought at the time. And I conveyed that.

It was not a White House issue. If the president wants to raise that issue, he'd be free to do so. But a personal lawyer should raise it. And not me. And some sort of golf issue that he had with Mr. Muller. McGann then said it shouldn't have been the job of the White House Council to raise those issues with Department of Justice. And that he had previous conversations with Trump in January 2017 about not using White House

Council to contact Department of Justice. And that if Trump wanted to raise that shit with his personal attorney, he could, or he could call the DOJ himself, but McGann advised against it because that's not appropriate. Not that it's breaking the law, it's just ill-advised. Dems then asked, well, it's not just about that, is it? Because you'll see in the footnote on the bottom of page 539, you told Mueller, you felt, once he was appointed, you could be a fact witness. Once Mueller was appointed, you could be a fact witness and told Trump, that's why you shouldn't be involved as well.

And McGahn was like, oh, yeah, true. Yes, correct. Then the Dems pointed the part of the report where McGahn told Mueller, yet he advised the president not to call Rosenstein the reasons why McGann told Trump that are not in this report, but Nadler asked him why he advised Trump or excuse me, I think it was it's it's Slur asked why he advised Trump not to call Rosenstein to air his grievances about Mueller and McGann gave the old well it looks bad But when the Dems asked him, well, would you agree that it would look bad because it looked, would look like he was trying to meddle in the investigation? McGann said, certainly, it doesn't mean he was.

But yeah, it could look that way. That was not in the Mueller report. So that's the first bit of new information we have from McGann testimony. But we all knew that and Mueller did a shoot to talk about that because it comes up later, right? That he believes it could look like Trump or meddling in the Mueller probe if he called the Department of Justice to complain about his ridiculous conflicts of interest. Now the part that is in the Mueller report though is where the lawyer and chief of staff to McGahn Donaldson told the president that going through his personal attorney to do it would look like you're trying to meddle in the investigation and knocking out Mueller would be another fact using a claim of obstruction of justice.

And the Dems got McGann to agree to her statement. So that's pretty nice work. But he's just confirming that publicly available portion of the Mueller report, but he's saying yes, those notes are accurate that my chief of staff took. Nadler then asked what other facts was Donaldson referring to? Then there was an objection and the argument back was these were her notes of what McGann told her about the meeting. So they are McGann statements.

McGann conceded the point and said he must have said that. So Nadler asked again, or one of the Dems asked again. I'm sorry, I don't know if it was now they're not. They didn't put the name in front of each question, just that questions were asked. But one of the Dems asked again, what other facts he was referring to in Donaldson's notes that could constitute obstruction. And McGann says, well, you know, there was already a ton of news coverage over, you know, a number of other issues, including removal of the director of the FBI, the Michael Flynn situation. The report has, I mean, you can read from prior to page 81 and that gives you the list.

Then they reminded McGann about what he told Trump that his biggest exposure wasn't that he fired Comey, but his other contacts and the Flynn-ask. McGann confirms that he said that and explains what those events were. You know, the Flynn-ask, go easy on Flynn. And then the Dems asked, what other contacts were you referring to? McGann said he was referring to the other contacts with Comey, the dinner, the phone call, the loyalty-ass, the stuff Comey had taken in his contemporaneous notes. Interesting. We kind of didn't know what he meant by other contacts. So that's sort of new. But we know. We knew. Then onto the Washington Post, when they reported Trump was under investigation

for obstruction and called McGann twice that weekend and asked him to call Rosenstein and bring up those conflicts until Rosenstein Mueller can't serve because of them. He then said in the president's view, Mueller shouldn't be able to serve a special counsel because of the conflicts. McGahn told the Dems he would not be comfortable making the call to Rosenstein and really just wanted to get off the phone. When asked why he wasn't comfortable, McGahn opened up a little, not comfortable making it the same reasons I've stated before.

It's not the official counsel to the president's job to raise with the, in the case, I guess, of the acting attorney general, a conflict that sounds like it's business or personal. And that would take me far out of the lane of my job and given all the other atmospheric surroundings and conversations about Flynn with Comey and the like, it just in my judgment as a lawyer,

wasn't the right time to call Rod Rosenstein. And I also had a concern I wasn't really sure how Rod would react. My fear was if you push Rod too hard on the point he, and like if I conveyed the tone that I heard on the phone from the president to Rod, Rod could do who knows what. He could resign himself. Who knows what Rod would do. So what I was not going to do is cause

any sort of chain reaction that would cause this to spiral out of control in a way that wasn't in the best interest, at least as a lawyer, what I thought wasn't in the best interest of my client, which was the president. And then shit gets good. Who knows what Rod would do? You said, like what? Well, he could resign. Why would he resign? Because he may have felt if he had been given an order, he couldn't execute. And you know, if you're given order, you don't think you can follow, you resign. Why would you think you couldn't follow that order? Well, you'd have to ask him, but I didn't want to put Rod in a box. It's Rod in a box. And you were also concerned about calling Rod because you could be a fact witness,

isn't that right? Absolutely. Cool. And this is a fun exchange. Question. McGann said he told the president that he would see what he could do. And I did say that. Yeah, yeah. Did you intend to see what you could do? No. Then why did you say that to the president? I was trying to get off the phone. Dem say bottom of page 85 top of 86 in the report. It says, again, was concerned about having any role in asking the acting attorney general file special fire special counsel because he had grown up in the Reagan era and wanted to be more like Judge Robert Bork and not quote Saturday Night Massacre Bork. He wanted to be like Judge Robert Bork and not Saturday Night Massacre Bork. As expected, Republicans questioned McGann about nothing really substantial other than trying to

discredit the FBI investigation into Flynn and that Mueller was never actually fired. So obstruction of justice doesn't count, which is wrong. You don't have to be successful in obstructing justice to have obstructed it. They tried to relitigate Mueller's findings by suggesting the president is allowed to corruptly fire Komi, which is also not true. And by the way, this is Mr. Caster.

You'll remember him from, he's the charming man from the second impeachment trial, who's now defending some capital insurrectionists. And then Gates, who is under federal investigation for sex trafficking, a minor, asked McGann if Rosenstein ever threatened to resign, or if a Saturday night massacre style thing even happened. Because I guess Gates won, can't remember, or two, thinks that in order to obstruct justice, you have to be successful. Caster then brought up a third conflict of interest that the Dems left out and okay, good on you.

That mullerhead interviewed for FBI director, but he didn't. McGahn said no one was advocating for muller to get the job and he didn't recall if muller was interviewed. Right after McGahn said that, Caster said, you didn't witness any collusion with any Russian people, right? What? What? How do you go from Mueller wasn't interviewing for the FBI position? Did you witness any collusion with,

you didn't witness any collusion with any Russian people, right? Then Kaster asked if McGahn thinks Trump made the right decision to fire Comey. McGahn thinks Trump made the right decision to fire Komi. McGahn said, yes, but once again irrelevant. McGahn described his feelings about the president's directive that he ordered then deputy attorney general Rosenstein to fire Mueller. And he said he worried, pressently, that the whole situation could result into being pulled into a congressional hearing.

Here he is. After Trump pushed him to have Mueller ousted a second time during a phone call, again, said he didn't feel great. That was his testimony. Well, after I got off the phone with the president, how did I feel? Oof, frustrated, perturbed, trapped, many emotions. Felt trapped because the president had the same conversation with me repeatedly, and I thought I conveyed my views and offered my advice, and we're still having

the same conversation. And I figured at some point, he'd want to have that conversation again. And at that point, I wasn't exactly sure how to navigate that one. So I felt like I was trapped. During NADDler, who pushed for the McGahn testimony for years, like I said, released a statement

describing the testimony as revelatory. All told, Mr. McGahn's testimony gives us a fresh look at how dangerously close President Trump brought us to, in Mr. McGahn's words, the point of no return. We knew that, Jerry. The hearing got occasionally testy as Democrats pressed McGahn on events from four years earlier. McGahn appeared to sidestep certain, such as his reaction to actions taken by the former guy. Or in some instances, said he didn't understand the question. And one example, Megan said he didn't have a crisp recollection about certain conversations with Trump and others,

and deferred to his previous testimony. And that right there, my friends, Megan's repeated complaint that that shit happened four years ago, and he can't remember, goes right to the heart of why the Mueller investigation was so important. Even if he didn't draw any conclusions other than we can't not say Trump didn't obstruct justice, and Hammer's home the need for congressional subpoenas to be complied with properly, and it's a good argument for any court battle in the future that we might see, maybe now, with this new story about him going after Schiff and Swalwell's records.

But that, you know, if a criminal referral is made on instruction of justice, none of this would be able to probably be investigated, had Mueller not completed his work and gotten everything down while it was fresh in the minds of those who were there. We'll be right back with some news about Cawk and Fucks. No, I'm not joking. And stick around later for the fantasy indictment leagues. Stay with us. Hey everybody, it's the host formerly known as AG and this portion of Mueller she wrote

is brought to you by BetterHelp. Everybody needs help. From time to time, life can get very stressful. And if you're struggling with anything that's preventing you from living a good life, I really recommend better help. It's not a crisis line or self-help, it is licensed professional therapy done online. Better help will assess your needs and they'll match you with your own licensed professional therapist and you can start communicating in under 24 hours. You know I face my own challenges with anxiety and PTSD, post-traumatic stress, and I know how important it is and I know how hard it is to seek help, but you can do it.

You don't have to take it on alone, and you're not alone. Better Help Services are available for clients worldwide. They have a broad range of experts in their network, a lot of which might not be locally available to you. They're online. They're all available to you. And the best thing about Better Help is you can log into your account anytime and send a message to your counselor, and you'll get thoughtful responses, plus you can schedule weekly

video or phone sessions. Better Help is committed to facilitating great therapeutic matches which is so important to the process. They make it easy and free to change your counselor if you want to, and it's more affordable than traditional counseling and financial aids available. You can check out their website and read some testimonials like this one by BetterHelp user SH who says, Deborah has been able to help me find my way through a lot. She's an amazing listener, and I never feel as I'm being judged or dissected, only that she cares to help me further my journey of healing. I'm glad I've had the chance to meet her and continue to work with her.

So visit betterhelp.com slash AG. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P, and join the O-R-E 100,000 people taking charge of their mental health with the help of an experienced professional. Special offer for Mola Shirot listeners, you can get 10% off your first month at better help calm slash a g Hey everybody welcome back members Steven cock The guy that lent a quarter of his tiny banks annual revenue $16 million to Manafort exchange for being under secretary of the army Just a quick update for you on that case now in Mayth, the Southern District of New York submitted a highly classified document in camera exparte. Ooh, that means in secret with the judge and without the other party there.

And the judge received that and the government wrote, the government does intend to make a motion under the classified Information Procedures Act, CIPA, CIPA, or CIPA. I'm not sure how that's spoken as an acronym. We're going to do that seeking relief regarding the introduction of classified evidence at trial under procedures set forth in CIPA. The government will provide the court with more information regarding its requested relief. Basically, that means the prosecutors here are asking the judge not to disclose this classified material to the defense and keep it under wraps and it's part of their case. And the judge has made a decision. Now on June 9th, Judge Scofield ruled, quote,

the government motion is granted and the deleted classified material need not be disclosed to the defense. And it is further ordered that the government submission is hereby sealed and shall remain preserved in the custody of the classified information security officer and accordance with established court security procedures until further order of this court. Signed by Judge Lorna Scofield on June 9, 2021, the full order says that the disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to national security. As a reminder, COC was hit with a superseding indictment, adding count to conspiracy to commit financial institution bribery, citing a January 10, 2017 interview for Undersecretary of

the Army at the Presidential Transition Teams Manhattan offices. I didn't know he interviewed for the job. Koch was a ran for that May 23rd, and on May 26th, the prosecutor said, hey, this one thing is super classified. Can we not give it to the defense K-thanks by? And the judge has agreed. So what is this highly classified document?

Well, I have some beans, but only based on similar filings from prosecutors in the Manafort case in the Eastern District of Virginia. And that was the super secret addendum to the memo authorizing the Mueller investigation scope. The one that the public didn't get to see. Remember how there's a public one?

Then we saw a secondary one, but apparently there was a tertiary one that was even more specific. I don't know. Had to do with Manafort, though. That's kind of what I think. Because this cock is related to Manafort. As you know, cock's trial starts June 22nd. And that brings us to Fuchs and Telushenko.

Not sure if you remember these fellas, but they are Rudy Giuliani associates, who may or may not have been feeding Russian disinformation to folks like, oh, I don't know, Senator Ron Johnson. You may remember me reporting about Telushenko's visa being revoked just before Trump's Treasury Department sanctioned Rudy's pal, Andre Durkacz. That's the guy who he did the podcast to his.

Telleschenko accompanied Rudy on his trip to Kiev in late 2019 to dig up dirt on Biden. And beginning as early as 2017, telleschenko started spreading desert that it was Ukraine that interfered in 2016 and not Russia. Sound familiar? Yeah, buddy. That's totes being investigated in the Eastern District of New York right now and could be part of the Southern District New York's investigation into Rudy neat. Now in March of 2020, a little over a year ago, go to all

Russia, Ron Johnson wanted Telushenko to testify in his, in his fucking investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden when he was the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and governmental affairs committee. And he was all teed up to vote on the subpoena for for Tallahshanko when oops, all of a sudden he called it off after a pair of briefings they got from federal officials. I feel like he was about to subpoena this fucking spy and intelligence community, even under Trump was like, no, no, no, no, no, no. And the briefings raised questions about the Ukrainian's reliability as a source for two politically sensitive investigations before the committee, including one into the family of former vice president, Joe Biden. Even Republicans were like, dude, this is really a really crème-ligny guy and you should stop taking his intelligence and feeding it to Congress.

Russia Ron would not address the concerns raised by everyone and instead said, I don't think there was going to be a big deal. So anyhow, that's who Telushenko is. He's part of the Rudy Dirkotch Biden, does a campaign now under investigation in the Eastern District of New York. And Fuchs, he was a client of Telushenko and a real estate developer from Bloomberg. Donald Trump's dream of putting his name on a tower in Moscow came with a hefty price tag, 20 million dollars. Trump demanded that non-negotiable fee in 2006 from a Ukrainian Russian named Pavel Fuchs,

who made his fortune in oil trading, banking, and real estate development. Fuchs, who says he's been barred from entering the U.S. and is embroiled in a dispute over money he spent to attend Trump's inaugural event, spoke about the early Moscow negotiations and an interview with Bloomberg News in a key office and a team of armed security guards stationed outside. Unquote. Well, that's a little background on the two fellas, give you a little refresher. Fuchs and Telegranco.

But here's the new news about these two guys. They're being sued by an estranged associate of Fuchs named Yuri Vanityk. The suit accuses them, Fuchs and Telegranco, racketeering and fraud, and alleges that Fuchs is an agent of the Russian Intelligence Service and a Monday-Londor. Now in 2019, Fuchs sued Vanetik, Venetik Yury. The guy who sued him now, Fuchs sued him. In 2019, for building him out of $200,000, which he paid, he paid money, $200,000 to get VIP tickets to Trump's inaugural.

Never was able to get in, wasn't on the list. Fuchs ended up watching the inauguration from a bar in the district of Columbia. The suit also alleges, folks sought to access Trump by retaining well-connected lawyers, including Caluity Rudy and folks actually paid Rudy's security firm, security and safety. It's called Giuliani Security and Safety, which is also under federal investigation in the Southern District of New York, in that phara probe. From the Daily Beast, as the feds expand their probe into Rudy Giuliani, investigators have

homeed in on Giuliani Security and Safety, a consulting firm that has done business with various governments and organizations around the world, according to two people briefed on the matter, and another source familiar with the Sitch. In recent months, the investigators have asked questions about and examined documents related to Giuliani Security and Safety GSS. Their interest comes at a time when the feds have ramped up their scrutiny of Giuliani, including his Ukraine-related efforts to determine whether or not the former New York City mayor engaged in unregistered and illegal lobbying on behalf of foreign figures.

Giuliani has repeatedly denied in engaging in any unregistered lobbying or committing any fair of violations. So far, no charges have been brought against him in this matter. But remember, the special master was just appointed, Barbara Jones, same special master from the Cohen case. He was raided. Giuliani was raided in April. It is now June.

Special master is just signed on. It's going to be a while. So hang in there. During the first year of the Trump administration, Giuliani security and safety was hired by the Ukrainian city of Karkeev. The deal was reported that it was apparently the result of the local influence of the Ukrainian Russian real estate developer, Pavel Fuchs, an ally of the town's Moscow-friendly mayor. Fuchs was previously engaged in two negotiations to construct a never-realized Trump Tower Moscow.

In 2018, Press release purported that the firm was working to establish a carqueue office in emergency management modeled on New York cities. I think that's the one that he built at the base of the World Trade Center. But in an interview with The New York Times, Fouque's characterized Giuliani's role is that of lobbyist. Giuliani has disputed it, but the deal subsequently drew criticism as a lawyer, galavant at about Eastern Europe attempting to prop up conspiracy theories about now President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden.

Giuliani has insisted that the work in Ukraine was all done on behalf of his client, Trump. And therefore could not have been part of a foreign lobbying effort. Trump hasn't claimed him. The extension of the federal investigation into Giuliani security and safety with its numerous foreign clients could complicate that assertion. Vanidic alleges, in the Rico suit that he filed against Fuchs and Tala Shankar, that Fuchs and Tala Shankar tried to smear and extort him, destroy his business and reputation, and arrange for his assassination. I will keep an eye on this story for you. Stick around, I will be right back with sabotage and the fantasy indictment leagues stay with

me. Hey everybody, this episode of Mullah Shiroot is all about self-care. And as you know, one of the most important parts of my self-care routine is sleep. Getting the right amount of sleep, enjoying sleep, staying asleep. This segment is brought to you by Rise. This is a science-based app that makes it easy to improve your sleep and your energy during the day. Here at MSW, like I said, we love anything science-based, we love anything sleep-based, sleep is essential

as air and water, but there's a lot of disinformation out there about sleep. It is normal, by the way, to feel groggy in the morning and sluggish in the afternoon, but it is not normal to feel tired all day. That is an indication you're carrying something called sleep debt. Sleep debt is the only sleep score that matters, and rise tracks how much sleep you owe your body relative to your own unique sleep needs, and it helps you pay back that debt. Your circadian rhythm dictates your personal energy peaks and dips throughout the day, rise not only predicts your daily energy based on your sleep schedule, it helps you pay back that debt. Your circadian rhythm dictates your personal energy peaks and dips throughout the day, where I's not only predicts your daily energy based on your sleep schedule,

it helps you take control of it. I have only been using the RISE app now for about a week, and it calculated my sleep debt. I was able to catch up after a few small adjustments. My energy throughout the day is noticeably better. Every morning RISE tells me how long I'll be groggy, when my best focus times will be. That's when I tend to do my interviews with the big folks, and it tells me when I should

start winding down for bed so I can get better sleep. Rise helps you realize your potential with real results, real productivity, real performance, real wellbeing. 80% of rise users feel the benefits within five days, and I can attest to that. Give it a try and see what it can do for you. Go to risescience.com slash MSW. Download the Rise app today. Try it free for seven days. Whether you want to become a morning person,

wake up more refresh, be less exhausted during the day, or just target those times that you're more focused for things that you need to have more focus for, Rise is the power behind your next best day, I promise. That's risescience.com slash MSW to try the Rise app free for seven days. You'll be glad you did. Everybody, welcome back. you ready for sabotage?

[♪ INTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ Today's sabotage is brought to you in two segments. The first part comes from another Mother Jones quote, and I love this. The testimony of key witnesses and Donald Trump's first impeachment trial is under new scrutiny by the House Intelligence Committee following a report this week that undercuts the veracity of his claim that he was unaware of a Trump effort to pressure Ukraine into mounting a meritless investigation of Joe Biden. As we know, Monday, CNN reported new details, call records and recordings of a July 2019

call between Rudy and Volker and Andre Yermak, a top aid to Zelensky. During that call, Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, aggressively pressed Ukraine to announce investigations into dubious accusations about Biden and about alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election. Portions of the conversation have been previously reported by BuzzFeed in time, but CNN published a full audio. The recording of the conversation contradicts Volker's sworn testimony to Congress that he never witnessed any attempt on the part of Trump and Giuliani to muscle Ukraine into launching an investigation of Biden, Trump's possible opponent in the upcoming election.

The discrepancy between Volker's testimony and the recording of the call has drawn the attention of the House Intelligence Chairman Schiff, who told Mother Jones that Volker's assertions to Congress amounted to a disingenuous revision of history. Yes, Adam, we call that a lie. Volker claimed in sworn testimony during Trump's impeachment that even as he helped push Ukraine to look into Burisma and corruption, he didn't know that those topics related to Biden, and consequently he was unaware that he was assisting Giuliani and Trump to smear a political rival. Quote, Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion.

Volker said, in a 2019 deposition before the House Intelligence Committee, I'll repeat that. Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion. At no time was I aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. As you know, he says, from the extensive real-time documentation, I provided Vice President Biden was not a topic of our discussions. That is what Volcker said under oath. Let me read you the transcript of this new part of the call. All we need from the president Solensky is to say I'm going to put an honest prosecutor in charge. He's going to investigate and dig up the evidence that presently exists. And is there any other

evidence about involvement in the 2016 election and that the Biden thing has to be run out? Somebody in Ukraine's got to take that seriously. He was also Giuliani also told your Mac on that call that Volker was on, that he was eager for Ukraine to look into an allegation that Shokin was fired because President Biden threatened former Ukrainian president Poroshenko with not getting a loan guarantee that was critical at the time. In his October 3rd deposition, Volker acknowledged arranging and participating in this call with Giuliani and your Mac, but insisted it was just an introductory conversation. It was literally, quote, you know, let me introduce you, you know, Mr. Giuliani, let me introduce

you to Mr. Your Mac. I wanted to put you in touch. Blah, blah, blah. Go Adam Schiff, go. We talked about the Senate committees, not necessarily having subpoena power. The House committees, House Intelligence, Adam Schiff, total subpoena power. Get them. Part 2 of sabotage.

Attorney General Barr, has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone? I wouldn't... Yes or no. Could you repeat that question? I will repeat it. Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone? Yes or no, please, sir.

The president or anybody else? Seems you would remember something like that and be able to tell us. Yeah, but I'm trying to grapple with the word suggest. I mean, there have been discussions of matters out there that they have not asked me to open a investigation. Perhaps they've suggested. I don't know. I wouldn't say suggest.

Hinted? I don't know. Inferred. You don't know, I wouldn't say suggest. Hinted? I don't know. Inferred? You don't know. I think that one is self-explanatory. Which brings us to the fantasy and diamond league. I'm gonna be a di-dit! No way, it's gonna be a di-dit!

I'm gonna be a di-dit! I'm gonna be a di-dit! And I'm gonna be a di-dit! I'm gonna be a di-dit! I'm gonna be a di-dit! I'm gonna be a di-dit! I'm gonna be a di-dit! I'm gonna be a di-dit! I'm gonna be a di- calm down. I can't calm down, I'm gonna be dead.

Okay, okay. Fantasy and Diamond League time. I still think it's a little too early for Trump by Vanka, Junior Eric in the Sivance, Tish James, Trump Organization investigation. They just got that special grand jury together, but I'm gonna go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and say Trump Daddy Trump

Volker would be fun. I'm gonna put him on there. It's too soon, but I'm gonna stick him on there anyway gates Anytime now July is Gates. Anytime now July is purportedly the publicly reported timeframe we should expect an indictment July August for Matt, Mattie, milkshake, Mattie. Uh, Harvey, Derek Harvey, Nunez, Aide, wrapped up in the Giuliani stuff. Uh, it's too soon for Rudy. It's too soon for Rudy. But let's put, let's put Teletel's Encore. Because I know the Eastern District of New York is investigating all that garbage. One, two, three, four, five. Those are my five. And we're going to leave it at that. Everybody, please have a safe and wonderful week. I look forward to seeing you again next week here on Mullershi Road.

Thanks to our patrons. If, by the way, if you're a patron of Mullershi Road, you get these episodes, add free. You're also become a patron of the Daily Beans, which is our daily weekday morning news show with Dana Goldberg breaking down the news. And on Fridays, the voice of Shira on Netflix, Amy Carrero joins us. We have all sorts of great guests for that show. I hope you tune in, and I just wanna thank everybody

so much for listening. I cannot believe the un... The support, the unbelievable support you guys are showing me. I'm actually speechless. I'm tripping over my words with the support you've shown me. So thank you very much. Until next time, I'm Allison Gill and this is Muller She Wrote. Muller 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, visitWmedia.com. Season 4 of How We Win Is Here For the past four years we've been making history in critical elections all over the country. And last year, we made history again by expanding our majority in the Senate, eating election denying Republicans and crucial state house races, and fighting back a non-existent red wave.

But the Magga Republicans who plotted and pardoned the attempted overthrow of our government now control the House. Thanks to gerrymandered maps and repressive anti-voter laws. And the chaotic spectacle we've already seen shows us just how far they will go to seize power, dismantle our government, and take away our freedoms. So the official podcast of the persistence is back with season 4. There's so much more important work ahead of us to fight for equity, justice, and our very democracy itself.

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

And this is how we win.