The Chris Cuomo Project - Matt Taibbi on the TRUTH Behind Russiagate

Episode Date: August 12, 2025

Matt Taibbi (author, investigative journalist, and publisher, Racket News) joins Chris Cuomo to dig into the unanswered questions surrounding the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign, the origins of the Steele dossier, and what he sees as parallels to Watergate and the WMD scandal. They debate whether any crimes will be proven, the role of the media, and how Russiagate’s legacy shapes politics today. From FISA warrants to informant approaches, leaked intelligence to unanswered questions about Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Taibbi lays out the evidence he’s uncovered — and why he believes accountability matters. Cuomo challenges him on the political impact, the risks of endless investigations, and the future of independent journalism. For a limited time only, get 60% off your first order PLUS free shipping when you head to http://www.Smalls.com/CUOMO Go to http://www.quince.com/CUOMO for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns."\ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Russia Gates not going away and there are real questions and I have some answers for you from the man who has dug deeper than anyone Chris Cuomo here. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo project. Matt Taibi. He is making the case for independent journalism. He's on substack racket news. He is a real one, okay? Not just hot takes. All right? This is a guy who does the work, who does the reporting and he has real questions about Russiagate that some of which I find the same. same curiosity, some of which I don't. So how did it go? Let's get after it. Matt Taibi, my man, Rackett News. Thank you for joining me, as always. Of course, thanks for having me on, Chris. I appreciate it.

So there's two big ones. I've got to talk to you about the known and unknown and significant of what we're calling the Russia Gate probe again. and I also want to talk to you about media and responsibility. But first things first, why is it called Rackett News? That was actually the name of a publication that I was going to co-edit with Alex Perrine once upon a time with the intercept years ago. So it was supposed to be a satirical paper like Spy Magazine. Oh, I love Spy Magazine.

And we do need to make a racket. That's where the RICO laws come from a racket was from the prohibition days of when people would be making noise at a speakeasy, obviously paradoxically, because you're supposed to be quiet when you're in a speakeasy.

And we need to make noise right now about what matters. And you say, looking at what happened during the Russian election interference probe matters. Why? I mean, I think this story compares, it's very similar to two major scandals in recent American history.

It's very similar to the WMD scandal, but it's also similar to Watergate. Watergate was a story about the bugging of an opposition presidential campaign during an election season, and this was also about the illegal surveillance of another campaign during an election season, along with dirty tricks, like leaking of phony intelligence from the various agencies. I think there are a lot of illegalities that, really, there are similar stories. The pre-election activity is very, very similar to Watergate. The post-election activity is very similar to the WMD story. So why isn't it just more of the same then?

Why isn't it just the same as what was done to the Clintons during their first term? or done to Hillary with her emails. I mean, isn't this just what we've seen in terms of making law fair part of the political process? Well, I don't know that anybody ever obtained FISA authority on the Clintons. Again, I think people forget

how powerful these tools are. When you get FISA authority on a figure-Lead Carter page, who was a former Trump aide, you get visibility into the entire Trump world. it's not just that person it's everybody that person talks to and everybody those people talk to so it's an extraordinarily powerful tool with no oversight and they lied in a warrant application to get it so again it's how do they lie what's the lie well the lie is they referenced the paid opposition research document the steel dossier and they kind of doubled buttered their own bread by referring to a news article as if it supported the dossier when in fact the news article quoted the dossier's author. So they were essentially double quoting the same source. But we're always told that FISA is

layers and layers of review, layers of review and the managing case agent has to look at everything over and there's a judge that looks at it. So how did this go sideways with Carter Page? Well, they misled the judge. So that's, it's not the judge's fault. I I mean, I think the FISA judge, first of all, I think people need to know that the FISA law, which goes all the way back to 1978, these warrants are very, very rarely turned down when the FBI asked for them, when the NSA asks for them. They're almost always granted. The judges who meet in secret, and there's no public oversight of them, they take it for granted that they're being told the truth by intelligence agencies. and that's probably the way the system is supposed to work.

But in this case, the FBI misrepresented the facts. They omitted crucial details like the fact that Page was in good standing as an informant with the CIA at the time they issued the warrant application. So they would never have gotten it passed if they had told the truth. So when people look at how, so how did this all start? Oh, the dossier was fake. No, it was Papadopoulos. and it was real.

So George Papadopoulos is a real guy. He really went to some Australian diplomat and said the Russians have dirt on Clinton. He actually never said dirt, and he never said anything about thousands of emails. Doubtor himself said that. What did he say? He said the Russians have information. So the whole thing about dirt and emails turned out to be... But hold on a second.

All right, so semantics. Why did he tell an Australian diplomat, anything? What did he think the significance of his own words were? So, again, this very young Trump aide, George Popidopoulos, was approached by this mysterious Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, who, by the way, disappeared in the middle of this and has not been found since. There's a strong implication that he was supposed to be some kind of Russia-linked figure, but there are also indications. that he was one of ours, and he had a discussion with this Papadopoulos, and apparently

Popatopoulos mentioned something that this MIFSID character told him in his conversations with Downer. Downer then walks into the embassy in London and talks about this conversation. But Chris, this is all academic because none of this is really the beginning of this story. We know, we already know that there were there were Trump figures who were already under investigation long before the Papadopoulos incident they were approached by people like Stefan Halper they were bumped and they had things that were called loyalty checks done and even John Brennan testified that he triggered the FBI investigation before this so I get that that's supposed to be the predicate of the investigation but it really isn't do you think Brennan did anything illegal yes for

sure. I mean, well, I shouldn't say that definitively. I mean, I think the case for perjury is extremely strong. Because he told Congress that the steel dossier did not in any way serve as a basis for the intelligence community assessment of 2017. And the still dossier is in the intelligence community assessment of 2017. In fact, one might argue it's the key piece of information in that document. And the details from it leaked almost immediately after that document was presented to Trump and really started the entire Russiagate mania going. So there's that, but there's there are probably also other things that are going to come into play, but we'll have to see about those. But Brennan just has to say, yeah, I know the dossier was in there. There are a lot of things in

there that I don't think were central to the understanding. I never said it was central to the understanding. And I maintain that it wasn't central to my understanding. How did he break the law? He said it wasn't in any way used as a basis for the assessment. By him. But it was used. It was used by the CIA and it was used by...

Right, but if he says there are a lot of things that are... I'm telling you, this is what he's going to say, okay? Remember, I'm telling you this right now. If he has to testify, okay, big if, but if he does, or if he just decides to come in and doesn't have to, but he wants to, he's going to say, I'm telling you I didn't use any of that information and formulating my understanding. I get a lot of data points given to me, and I decide with guidance what people weigh and what they don't, but then I weigh it myself as well. And I'm telling you again, it was not central to me. I know it's in the report. I understand that. I did the report.

I'm saying just because it was in the universe of what my people were working with doesn't mean it was what mattered to me. Well, he may say that I would, as a juror, I probably wouldn't find that convincing, especially after. You think he's going to go to trial? I think there are going to be indictments. I was very skeptical on that question even a couple of weeks ago, but I have heard repeatedly from these folks that they understand that this is not a hearts and minds contest and that they are not doing this for a show and that if they don't end up in a courtroom, that this will be a massive political failure for them.

So I do think that there will be significant indictments. I just don't know what for. I mean, I think that's a very important question to ask right now. We know a grand jury has been convened, but they haven't really given us a strong indication about what crimes they might be invested. investigating. It has to be that. I mean, that's what we've seen with all of these things. I mean, even the Durham thing that just came up, you know, the cases that he made, right? The guy pleaded guilty to fuck him with an email. And then the other two guys, it was you lied to us and they lost both cases. So, you know, that's what it always comes down to. So that's a good point. But what I've heard from these folks is that they understand how that the optics of that and what that looks like. to voters and they are going to try for, I think, something more substantive, even if it comes up short. That's my sense of what they're looking at. This podcast is sponsored by Smalls. Now, I've got cat people all around me, all right? And let me tell you, you got to get the food right. That's true with all pets.

I know that in terms of how I keep my doggies going. Better, longer, even more so with cats. Very sensitive, okay? And what cats care about is eating what they like can be finicky, hence smalls. Smalls cat food is cat food done at its best. Protein-packed, preservative-free, so it's good for them and it is good to them. And delivered right to your door, that's key. Cats.com

named Smalls, their best overall cat food. Now, how about a deal to make you hungry? 60% off your first order plus free shipping. Yep, smalls.com forward slash WOMO for a limited time. Here's a review from a real Smalls customer. Elizabeth C. My cat was always so-so with her usual food,

but she's very enthusiastic about Smalls. Her breath is much better. better. Always a plus. And she poops, much less frequently. Sounds like me. And it doesn't smell disgusting like it used to. Sounds like Greg. So what are you waiting for? Give your cat the food they deserve. Limited time only. Because you're listening to me on the Chris Cuomo project, you can get 60% off your first Smalls order plus free shipping. All you got to do is go to small.com forward slash quomo and you get 60% off smalls.com forward slash quomo free shipping where smalls dot com forward slash quomo does that worry you at all mad that's why i'm so happy uh always to talk to you and

i'm so proud of the success you're having as an independent on now because you're one of the few guys i know in the business um who is successful at the business, you're going to be a lot more successful, but you believe in accountability and you remember what you were taught from working at real organization. So that's a real precious commodity and I'm very happy for racket news on Substack and I wish you continued success. And I was excited to talk to you about this because it's not just about information, it's about perspective that you have because of how you own it and in context of other things we've seen. So they say to you, this would be really bad politically, if nothing. comes of it so we're not messing around here well we know how easy it is to indict somebody does it concern you at all that this is going to be an extension of the lawfare where they're going to indict them because it's too easy not to um i i would be concerned except i i think that there are real offenses here uh i think you know it's it's again i would say it's analogous to the watergate situation where um when you really delve into it

But jurors are probably going to end up, I think, if they present the evidence correctly, they're going to end up upset at the core scandal. They're going to want to give a real sentence for something to somebody. And I don't think it's just the prosecution like the, you know, the Trump prosecution in Manhattan, which I thought was sort of a stitched together legal argument that probably was never going to succeed. This is different. I think they're aiming.

for something that it has to be a conspiracy charge almost automatically because everything else the statute of limitations has told. It's just the question of what kind of conspiracy they're going to try to prove. And, you know, if they have the evidence to prove it, that's one thing. If they don't, it's another. There's two things here. There's the, you know, sort of media side of this and exploding the myth of the Trump-Russia story, which I think is important to them on one level, but the prosecutions, you know, are still kind of a mystery. I don't know what they're going to be. Do you believe that there is no proof that Russia tried to mess with our election process? And by process, I don't mean voting. I don't mean the voting machines. I mean

just the environment of the campaign. No, in fact, I would say when I read the House Intelligence Committee report, you know, there is significant. intelligence in there. A lot of it was omitted and left out, but some of the stuff that was real pointed to conclusions by CIA analysts and other analysts that they thought Russia was responsible for the WikiLeaks material.

Look, I think that story has been misreported because the CEO of CrowdStrike eventually testified that he didn't even have proof that there was an actual hack that took place. There's also the existence of all this other material, this T1 material, that calls into question how Russia got hold of all of this internal correspondence and when they got it. But I do think that there's evidence of meddling, and I do think that there might be evidence of that it represented something more significant than typical kind of historical messing around, which is what some of the analysts argued. But, you know, I don't think it's conclusive, but I think it's there. My desire to walk down the road was dampened by the latest round of speculation about the Durham report.

And what bothered me was it seemed so obvious that there's an assumption going on that people are stupid. And not that everything you are saying is, forget about wrong, but in any way deceptive. I don't believe that at all. Otherwise, I wouldn't talk to you about it or I would accuse you and then we'd both hang up. But when they talked about the Durham one, comes out in 20, 23. The guy's looking at exactly like this. He's picked by Trump. He knows what his mandate is. Either he's a fair broker, he isn't, whatever. But they take another bite out of that thing to suggest that there is a massive headline that he just decided to ignore and bury in the

annex of his report. And then they just ignored an obvious reason for why when he was so pickyune. in terms of his criticisms of the probe. I mean, it wasn't like, you know, he was just taken a broad brush. I mean, he was very specific to find wrongdoing and in the approach and in the processing and in the scope and the duration and the degree. I mean, these are really fine cuts he's making. And he just ignores that Hillary Clinton was aware that the FBI was working with her campaign to get Apple research on Trump.

He just leaves it out of his report, buries it in an annex. And then, once you get over that hurdle of incredulity, there's a paragraph that the team never had confidence that Hillary Clinton or her campaign knew anything about what was being done. And that's why he didn't include it. But what is the other explanation? Why would Durham leave it out when that's exactly what he was investigating? Well, what Durham did or did not do and why he didn't. and didn't do it,

those are good questions. There are a lot of people who weren't happy with him at the moment. But, you know, all the facts that you just outlined, he did take out the most explosive stuff and put it in a classified annex. And that stuff is, I think, very newsworthy and, you know, raises an awful lot of questions and also completely recasts what the story,

is, you know, we had little glimpses of this whole idea, you know, that the Russians were talking about Hillary Clinton and having a plan to vilify Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and Russia. But we always thought that that narrative started later, like in July of 2016. You know, from now, from these new documents that came out, we know that that started much earlier, that the FBI was aware of that as early as March of 2016. So for, you know, for them to go forward and, you know, for it to be magically coincidentally true that that exact thing turns out to happen, that there is a campaign to link Trump to Putin,

and they use phony research to gen it up with the help of the Secret Services, which is what is in this Russian communique. I think that's an awfully big coincidence. And I don't think you can just dismiss it by saying, well, why didn't Durham prosecuted? I mean... Not prosecuted. He didn't mention it. He didn't mention it, but it's there, you know?

I know, but it's also there that his team didn't believe in the idea. That's why they left it out. Well, what idea, that Hillary knew about it? Yeah. Okay. No, that's not true. It's in there that they... I mean, I can read it to you, but you know the paragraph I'm talking about where they say they didn't have any confidence in it.

Whether it was true or partially true or not true. I mean, that's how they delineated, right? They straddled the fence on all the individuals and all their individual interviews. Like, for instance, Sheila Ann Smith, they thought maybe some of her text messages indicated that there might be something to it. The Jake Sullivan quote, you know,

I don't recall that. That's ridiculous, but, you know, I can't conclusively rule out that there was a plan like that. I mean, you know, that's a non-denial denial. There's a bunch of them that are kind of funny in that report, frankly. And also, those denials are kind of hard to take seriously when you know that they had, in fact, already engaged, you know, Fusion GPS and interest for Steele by the time

this stuff was being talked about. My biggest regret is I wish that they had put steel out sooner. And because I believe that he always wanted to throw water on this about what he was doing and how it was being cast. And he wound up having to own a lot of this that I didn't think it was fair. And if he had come out sooner, we would have had perspective a lot sooner on what's worthy of mention what isn't. Support comes from Quince. You want to look good, but not go broke?

Me too. So why drop a fortune on basics when you don't have to? That's what Quince is about, okay? The quality, check, fabric, styles, fits, check, check, check, lightweight, check. Check everything that you want is right there, except the big prices. You can get cozy cashmere, cotton sweaters for around 50 bucks. Breathable flow nips, very nice. Big guys like breathable.

And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. Now, why does that matter? Look, I think that we've got to take more responsibility for our children. choices, okay? It's true everywhere in life, right? And it should be in terms of your consumerism also. I'd rather know that I could get this shirt anywhere, but this company actually tries to do the right thing in a way that matters to me. So that's why I believe in this place, and I am very, very comfortable having them as my partner. So, Quince, keep it

classic, keep it cool, right? Long-lasting staples that everybody needs. Go to quince.com slash Cuomo. You will get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Quince, like the fruit, Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash Cuomo. Free shipping, 365-day returns. Can't beat it. Quince.com slash Cuomo. So how do you process all of the prosecution? Well, again, I think that's a big question. They've put out an awful lot of material that I think is very convincing as journalism, right? Like in terms of exploding the various myths of this story.

But in terms of criminal evidence, you know, I haven't seen a whole lot. No, but I mean, all of the ones that Mueller did. I mean, they, you know, they put a lot of people behind bars. Well, I mean, that looks very reprehensible and, you know, looks. looking back, if George Poppidopoulos was never really a target of their prosecution, I mean, they abandoned him as a target weeks after the opening of the FBI of the Crossfire Hurricane probe, and they put him in jail for, you know, lying anyway, about, you know, a date. All of that looks like they were doing prosecutions for show.

The only substantive prosecution that they ended up doing was of Manafort, and it had nothing to do with, you know. I had nothing to do with this. I agree with you. Um, Manafort's thing. But the, I mean, I guess you, I guess you could say tangentially, maybe that's why they were able to loop him in was because of his previous relationship. And then they looked at the previous relationship and they got him for that. But I was never, I was never impressed by that. I was never impressed by the New York cases. But I'm also not impressed by the, by this round that it was all lies and all this for one basic reason. Man, Maddie, this was a lot of work to do something as. easy as caused trouble for Trump. You can cause trouble for Trump. You never needed to go beyond his casinos, and you could have had months and months of drama. Well, but Chris, I think that's kind of looking at it from the wrong end. That was always my question about this. It's Donald Trump.

Why do you need to make anything up? You know, go look at his business history, look at Trump University, look at Trump's Ojo. There's a million things you could delve into if you really wanted to do Apo about Donald Trump. Why Russia specifically? Why may come out to the Austin Powers or James Pond when that's not who he is? And look, there's a suggestion in this recent stuff by Durham

and also the recent declassified material from the mid-year exam, investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, which I never thought was an important story until recently. that there was going to be a scandal about the fact that Russia had acquired an enormous amount of American correspondence at some point in 2015 and 2016. Somebody was going to argue that this was Hillary's fault because of her use of a private email server.

And so the idea of creating a scandal linked to Donald Trump in Russia to deflect from all that, It does make a kind of sense, right? And there is the outlines of a rationale for an overall plan. I think it was stupid if that was the idea. I think they should have just stuck before. Why did the intelligence community go along with it? Well, that's, you know, a big question.

Why? Like, why throw the backing of the FBI? What, you know, why, you know, throw careers down the toilet? I mean, I think they believed. I remember, may you rest in peace. Elijah Cummings saying to me, I've never seen people involved in the kind of stuff that they're bringing to us. But the deal was what they were bringing to them.

Yeah, but it was more than that also because it went on. It just never ended. And then even in the Mueller report, I mean, there were all of the, you know, I can always look at these things either way, and I know that makes people crazy. but when they get you for perjury or obstruction, okay? Okay, I get it. I get that those are crimes and I get that they can be very meaningful crimes. But they can also not be.

They can also be that somebody believes that you are coming out. Look, this happens to us all the time where you call me and say, I'm doing a story where Greg, your producer, says that you have been bullying him consistently. Now, I immediately perceive. that you are coming after me, okay? And that, oh, my God, for Maddie to even ask me about this is so fucking crazy, he's out to get me. I am not going to help him get me.

It's more likely that I'm going to lie about things that don't even matter to my relationship with my producer, but just because I'm trying to get rid of you, period. And I am going to try to get people not to talk to you to protect myself because I know you're trying to get me. And I had always seen that both ways, that when they had that big list at the end of the Mueller report,

where I was like, holy shit, these are actually real things. And they say, well, and he says, although it wasn't really him, as we learned, right, which was my biggest disappointment of the whole thing, was that I had been trusting in Mueller when clearly he was passed due, and he wasn't in control. But there were all these real things they could have prosecuted that they said they weren't going to because they were told that that wasn't their mandate or that they weren't allowed to because the legal letter.

But I understood at the same time how, Yeah, I get how Trump was trying to block this. I totally, I can totally see, I don't know, but I can totally see that this could be a bullshit charge, and he obstructed, and he told people not to do it, and there were people who lied. I think both could be true. Yeah, I mean, what would the optics be, though, of charging obstruction of justice on a ginned up phony prosecution and investigation? Well, they didn't think it was ginned up and phony then. It was about degree. The one thing that kept me invested in it is when Paul Manafort, Paul Manafort took a meeting with Jared Kushner that, you know, I mean, you and I have different backgrounds.

I would never take that meeting. We all know in this business, you do not take help from abroad. You don't take money. You don't take anything. You don't take trip. You've got to avoid it. I mean, everybody always gets caught. You never talk to people who can help you.

when they're not from America. You'll talk to the other party, but you don't take meetings like that. They took two, okay? And you have to be dumb to do that. You have to be not thinking straight to do what Roger and Caputo did, and I don't think they did anything illegal, okay?

But meeting with somebody who you know is saying they're shopping Russian propaganda, you don't take that meeting. Okay, so Chris, just to back up, you mentioned Roger and Caputo. I know Michael Caputo. I met him 20 years ago in Moscow. We were there at the same time.

And he was approached. He and Roger and Stone were approached by a guy named Henry Greenberg, aka Henry Akniansky, right? It's in the Mueller report, who offers to give him information about Hillary Clinton laundering money for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now, all that's in the Mueller report. What do they leave out of the Mueller report?

You know, they forgot that reporters like me are going to run pacer searches on these guys and find that Henry Greenberg is a registered effort. FBI informant. And what's he doing, making this approach just before identical approaches happen all across the board? Do you think they set them up? I think that's certainly a possibility.

I think it's a probability, not a possibility. In this particular instance of Stone and Caputo, I think it's a probability, not a possibility. And that's why, as I said, I don't think they did anything illegal. I do think their spidey sense should have. have been up. They're both very sophisticated political players. But I don't, you know, people make mistakes, but it never should have been anything that it became for those guys. And I know that that's frustrating to people, but for the wrong reason, you're frustrated by what I just said to Taibi because you're saying, but Stone is such a scoundrel. Yeah, I know, he calls himself that.

You don't go after people for what you can't prove because of things you believe you can prove that aren't relevant. We can't do that and we keep doing it. Well, right. And, you know, to quote the great Hunter Thompson from Fear and Loathing, you know, even a goddamn werewolf was entitled to legal counsel. Like, just because you don't like these people doesn't mean that you can do all this stuff to them.

I mean, I did a story last year about, you know, the investigative process with all of Trump's people and, you know, the number we got from the, House Intelligence Committee sources was, there were 26 different people in the Trump orbit who were approached by FBI informants before the election. That's a significant number of people. And, you know, we were only able to confirm about 12 or 13 of those, but even that's a pretty large number. And, you know, these people weren't doing anything wrong. They weren't involved in any conspiracy, and that was very clear early.

So why were they continuing to do it? I think that's the question that's going to come out. I think questions will come out. I think there will be grist for the mill. Not both ways. This is going to be overweighted in terms of this was a big waste of our time. But I still have concerns that it is another prolonged engagement that does not take the country to a better place. do not accept. Matt Taibi may release things that'll help people who are critical thinkers going

forward. I'm not foreclosing that possibility. But I refuse to accept that the efforts of the government to police itself by attacking the other side ever get us to a better place. I have never seen it. And the only time we got it right was Watergate when his own side came to him and said, you are going to be proper fucked if this goes forward walk away so that we can get the country to a different place you get one chance now i doubt trump would ever do that by the way but that's the only time they got it right as far as i'm concerned because whatever you were going to wind up doing prosecutorially would have been way worse for the country than good and that's my concern now is that we could easily spend the next year about this shit on and off and what are we doing about

immigration. You know, what are we doing about what happened with that big, beautiful bill? What are we doing about terrorists? What are we doing about things that matter to the majority? And that's my concern. I get, I totally get that, Chris. I think that's a legitimate point of view. I just think one of the reasons we have Donald Trump in office right now is because there's been this enormous collapse in belief in the system. People simply do not trust institutional America on any level, right? And so I think it would be a net negative to let significant illegal behavior go unpunished. Oh, always. I just don't know how significant the illegal behavior will be. And I keep being told there's significant illegal behavior. Again, not by Taibi. I'm talking to him because he's a

resource for me. And it never comes. Not even with Diddy. But wait, imagine it if it's not Donald Trump. Imagine that there's FISA authority on Benjamin Rhodes during Barack Obama's campaign. You got to investigate it. And at 26 different Obama officials were approached by FBI informants in the middle

of a presidential campaign. You got to engage. I mean, how is that not an enormous Watergate level scandal? I mean, what? It is, if it winds up being as clear as he sent them there to break into the office. And

And I don't see Clinton getting the opo research as breaking into the hotel. I don't think it's going to be that clear. And I think that these intelligence guys are going to say, look, they took meetings. Trump was saying stupid shit. Guys around him had weird relationships. You know, there was smoke. What do you want to tell us? That's what we do.

And they asked us to look at it, so we looked at it. And how much we looked at it, how long we looked at it, and what ways we looked at it. And what ways we looked at it, okay, fine, you can criticize us. But I just, I don't know that it's the kind of slam dunk that the country might require for this to be anything but more fuel for division. That doesn't mean you don't investigate it. It doesn't mean that it, but I'm saying that's my concern. I get it. You know, I might be convinced of that point of view if they only did it once, you know, the surveillance.

They got four of those warrants. they continue to investigate and spy on the president of the United States while he was in office and the FBI director was conducting an illegal investigation of his own president like you can't allow that stuff plus and that's not even taking into account the illegal leaking of classified information there's the espionage act which a law that I hate but it does apply here you know giving people who are not entitled to it national defense

information. That's all over this case. You know, Matt, it's funny you say that. Do you remember when WikiLeaks put out the emails, okay? This was new territory for us since the Pentagon Papers, okay? Like, we as journalists, we hadn't dealt with this kind of dump of whether it was classified or not because Clinton had classified email, Podesta's emails, all that shit. So it comes out. We get it with everybody else at CNN, and we're going to put it out.

I have one of the lawyers say, huh, I think we've got to be a little careful here. I said, why? He said, well, Pentagon Papers isn't exactly black letter law. Like, you know, neither is our First Amendment privilege. I mean, you know, this could go sideways, but we're okay on that because everybody got the dump at the same time, so it's really WikiLeaks problem.

But telling people, you should download this stuff, here it is, we're putting it on the website. you may be facilitating a violation of the espionage act and you know so then you look and nobody's ever really prosecuted this before but we've never dealt with it before which is where i get classified information i put it out you download it you're not a working journalist or just somebody else and now you may be guilty of violating the espionage act so i say that on the cnn morning show be careful with this stuff it's a little bit of unknown territory so you're probably going to be learning about this from us for the most part. We're going to be telling you because I don't know

what the law is really for you guys to download it. We sometimes get more protection. WikiLeaks and the political right, which I was surprised, it should have been the left. Anyway, they came after me until five minutes ago that I was trying to protect Clinton and tell people they couldn't read the emails. And it became one of these myths that what we're talking about right now with the espionage act that's exactly what my concern was and i didn't know one way or another they had never really tried it before yeah i mean i i i do remember that um i think like you i actually hired a lawyer at that time or i um i consulted with one privately i was still employed with rolling stone but i but i um went to a different lawyer

because this was uncharted territory we didn't know what was out there no Normally, right, the standard for reporters is other people can steal it. They can do whatever you want and we're fine, right? Like there's a Supreme Court case, Bartonicki v. Popper, which says we can publish stolen stuff. But there is a small section of intelligence where the journalist actually has liability for communicating. And I didn't know that until that moment. So it involves a very rarefied type of like. signals intelligence, I think.

But, yeah, it is a mine field. But I'm not saying that you don't look. People have to look, and the investigation has to happen. The easy answer to counter me and alleviate my concerns and move forward is, Chris, we can do two things at once. The fuck we can.

We cannot do two things at once, Maddie, unless we get attacked by somebody, you know, that's the only thing that will become where we start balancing interests. Otherwise, we do one thing at a time. And that's what Trump has arrived at, which is why he keeps flooding the zone with stuff. And, you know, even these subpoenas, I thought these subpoenas when they came out this morning were for Russiagate. They're for

Epstein. Right. You have the Epstein information. Release it. Release what you have. Don't subpoena all these. I mean, look, if we need to subpoena them, fine, but I want to know that. And you have stuff that could let me know whether or not this is necessary and you won't give it to me. I thought this was for Russiagate, these things. Yeah, I don't, honestly, I could not tell you what they're thinking on the Epstein thing.

I don't understand it. I don't understand why they talked up in the beginning. I don't understand why they decided not to release it. I don't understand what they're doing now. There's a lot of things I don't understand about the Trump administration and don't make a lot of sense. So, and this is another one of those things.

I will say, though, that with the Rushagate story, you know, they had two people that they brought in who, I think, were specifically brought in to deal with this story. That's Tulsi and Cash Patel. And that's why there's evidence it looks like to me that they put a lot more thought into this than they have some of the other stuff. So I think you see a distinction there. The Epstein thing, it almost seems like they're, you know,

pulling it out of their ass every morning. What do you think happens next? I think there will be well look there's a grand jury right so you never know how that's going to turn out and you know the grand jury may come back it's like nothing you know and and that's how it works you have to live with that in an American justice system so we will have to see there's going to be a period of uncertainty I think they'll continue to leak out other things though because there is a lot more raw material do you think Russiagate and its legacy is midterm fodder once we get there to November? Probably. I think it'll probably continue to be an issue. Look, for Donald Trump, this is a winning issue on two fronts for him politically, as long as he backs up what he says.

Number one, it continues to make the Democratic Party and the deep state look bad, but mainly it's a massive hit to the media, right? It undermines their credibility every time these disclosures come up because it blows up another round of stories that, you know, from the past. And so for him, it's a win-win. Like, you know, the New York Times may be coming at him

about something else, and he gets to cut their legs out over this other story. And so that's one of the reasons I think they're going to continue to hammer it. Do you think that there is a real basis to say that podcasts are better than media organizations, or is it case by case at best? No, I think there are pluses and minuses to, I think, I've always believed that you need

lots of different models of media, right? Like, I grew up in the household of a straight news journalist who only wrote two editorials in his entire life and is, you know, a just a facts man kind of reporter. But I also grew up loving Tom Wolfe and Hunter S. Thompson and believing that opinionated form of writing is a great addition to the landscape. I think podcasts are a great thing. America's always been good at innovating forms of journalism, but you do need the big organizations because you need people to have beats

and you need people to do investigative reporting, and you can't pay for that doing podcasting for the most part. And so I think you need to have both things. things, they're not mutually exclusive. I think that the democratization of media was good. I think the pendulum is swung and we're in correction mode. And just like with cable, you're not going to see a nipple on my show tonight. Do I agree with that standard?

No, I think it's silly and faux puritanical. But that's what it is. If we were on News Nation where you're always welcome, you wouldn't say, you know, fuck me, Chris. I was thinking the other day, you wouldn't say it. Why? We don't talk that way on cable, but that's how people talk. I'm just telling you that's how it is. So standards have always been around to one degree or another, and they change somewhat over time.

We don't have any on social media other than what the platforms decide they want. And I think that the algorithms should be designed to not only capture what is most sticky as content, because it's all bad for us. It's all porn, provocation, misinformation, disinformation, anger, aggression, hostility. And you can say, hey, marketplace of ideas, certainly I do, but that's not what we do in American society. We do not do marketplace of ideas because you do have profanity. You do have a lot of different things that I don't fundamentally disagree with philosophically. I don't agree. But if those are the rules, I think we need to put him to work when it comes to social media because Matt Taibi is one animal.

There's another guy with a set of cans on. in a hat who is saying complete bullshit and he knows it, but he's doing it to coax people to believe that there are Martians or that Democrats eat babies or whatever it is and you guys get the same platform. That's my concern. So again, I would say I would agree with you, but we've had the Internet for a long time.

And the reason those conspiracy theory sites, which have always existed. The reason they didn't get general traction before is because the quote-unquote credentialed media and legacy media policed itself a lot better in the past. And so there was this North Star of credibility that always existed, and people were able to tell the difference between, well, this has been checked, this has been reviewed,

and this hasn't, this has been, this is somebody's speculation. And that's one of the reasons why I think this Rush to Get story is important, because this was a moment when a lot of the news media lost its credibility. You know, you get peeled surprise for stories that are just flat wrong. And that caused a lot of people to question what they're seeing in these big legacy media organizations where, you know, I know personally, when the financial trouble started to hit this business, the first thing they went after were the fact checkers, right?

And there weren't that many left by the time I left Rolling Stone. So, look, I think you can solve that problem by having better conventional media, and we just don't have it right now. Do you think that the Clintons wind up being exposed to prosecution? I keep being told that. I'm not sure I understand how that can be the case. but I keep being told that Hillary Clinton is actually a target in these investigations. It may turn out that something having to do with her original email situation will be wrapped into some kind of conspiracy case.

But I don't know what it is and I don't see it. So I mean, this is me, the careful reporter saying I would caution people not to think that there's anything there yet before we see it. Mattie, Matt Taibi, Rackett News, appreciate you, appreciate your platform, appreciate your help. Thank you for coming on the podcast. Thanks so much, Chris. I appreciate it. Take care. Indictments, the Clintons, lawfare. If Matt is right, man, is this all going to go wrong?

Because we will be talking about nothing else and have another cycle of law fair. fair. And then you'll say, yeah, but this matters. Hey, that's what the aggrieved side always says. When does it end? How do we get to a better place? How do we go from distractions to being directed to what matters most to the majority? I don't know, but we'll figure it out together. Thank you for subscribing and following. Checking me out at News Nation, AP and 11P, Eastern every weekday night. TikTok, substack, subscribing and paying so that I can help people get treatment for long COVID and I will then take your comments and your criticisms and apply them to my lives there and you will get that access. And if you want to wear your independence by your

free agent gear, my brothers and sisters, show you are a critical thinker and not some party patsy. Let's get after it.