Podcasts about special counsel's office

Mornings on the Mall  Thursday, May 21, 2020 Hosts; Vince Coglianese and Mary Walter Executive Producer: Heather Hunter Guests: Liz Sheld, Cal Thomas, Erik Kiilunen, Tom Fitton and Shelley Luther SHOW RUNDOWN: 5 AM HOUR: 5-A/B/C -- 5:05 AM - NEW VIRUS GUIDANCE: CDC now says coronavirus ‘does not spread easily’ on surfaces. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now says the coronavirus “does not spread easily” through touching surfaces or objects. In early March, the federal health agency was warning that it “may be possible” to pass on the virus from contaminated surfaces, according to Fox News. Its guidelines now include a section on ways the virus doesn’t easily spread — including from touching surfaces or objects. “It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes,” the CDC webpage states. “This is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads, but we are still learning more about this virus.” Other ways the virus doesn’t easily spread is from animals to people or people to animals, the CDC’s updated webpage states. AND LAST MONTH... FDA says there is no evidence groceries can transmit coronavirus Your groceries apparently can’t transmit the coronavirus. There’s no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 can spread through food, or what it’s wrapped in, Dr. Stephen Hahn, commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, said Thursday. “We have no evidence that the virus, the Covid-19 virus, is transmitted by food or by food packaging,” Hahn said during a CNN town hall. [...] As for disinfecting your groceries, that may also be overkill, according to the FDA. VIRUS AND SMIMMING POOLS: ‘No Evidence’ That Coronavirus Spreads In Swimming Pools, According To CDC. As temperatures inch upward and Memorial Day quickly approaches, pools across the country remain closed due to coronavirus restrictions. Many are likely concerned about going for a swim, citing the possibility that coronavirus could be spread. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), however, says that there is “no evidence” that the virus can be spread to people through pool water, hot tubs, spas, or water play areas, as long as social-distancing measures are taken. “Proper operation and maintenance (including disinfection with chlorine and bromine) of these facilities should inactivate the virus in the water,” the CDC online guideline says. Individuals, pool owners and operators should still take the steps to ensure that the virus isn’t spread, including following local and state guidelines that determine whether pools can reopen. 5-D/E -- LATEST RUSSIA COLLUSION NEWS: CHUCK ROSS: FBI Offered To Pay Christopher Steele ‘Significantly’ To Dig Up Dirt On Michael Flynn. An FBI offer to pay former British spy Christopher Steele to collect intelligence on Michael Flynn in the weeks before the 2016 election has been one of the more overlooked revelations in a Justice Department inspector general’s report released in December. The reference to the FBI proposal, which was made in an Oct. 3, 2016, meeting in an unidentified European city, has received virtually no press attention. But it might have new significance following the recent release of government documents that show that Steele peddled an unfounded rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the United Kingdom. WAPO: Michael Flynn’s name was never masked in FBI document on his communications with Russian ambassador. But in the FBI report about the communications between the two men, Flynn’s name was never redacted, former U.S. officials said. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) announced this week that he wants to subpoena witnesses over the unmasking of Flynn, as part of a larger effort to unearth information about the FBI’s investigation of Trump campaign officials. On Tuesday, he sent a letter to acting director of national intelligence Richard Grenell asking why a declassified list of Obama administration officials who had made requests that revealed Flynn’s name in intelligence documents “did not contain a record showing who unmasked” Flynn’s identity in relation to “his phone call with” the Russian diplomat, Sergey Kislyak. Rice penned Inauguration Day email at White House counsel’s direction. On Jan. 20, 2017, the day of President Trump’s inauguration, Rice penned a memo to herself documenting a Jan. 5 meeting with Obama and others, during which he provided guidance on how law enforcement should address Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race. Parts of the email had been released previously, but the full unredacted email was declassified and made public this week. At the meeting, she, Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and other intelligence officials discussed her successor Michael Flynn’s communications with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Rice spokeswoman Erin Pelton told Fox News on Wednesday that Rice documented the contents of that meeting at the direction of Obama’s White House counsel, Neil Eggleston. UNDERCOVER HUBER with a new theory about leaks from MUELLER'S TEAM to flip TRUMP TEAM LAWYERS AGAINST THEIR OWN CLIENTS... Somebody faked that the Crossfire Hurricane team had a FISA on Paul Manafort & "leaked" this to CNN. And the culprits may have been the Special Counsel's Office, trying to influence D.C's Chief Judge into allowing the SCO to pierce Manafort's Attorney/Client privilege. (THREAD) NYT: Supreme Court Blocks Release of Full Mueller Report for Now. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked the release of parts of the report prepared by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election. The court’s order, concerning a request by the House Judiciary Committee for grand jury materials that the Justice Department had blacked out from the report provided to Congress, could mean that the full report would not be made available before the 2020 election. The Supreme Court’s brief order gave no reasons for blocking an appeals court ruling ordering the release of the full report while the justices considered whether to hear the case. It ordered the Justice Department to file a petition seeking review by June 1. There were no noted dissents. The House told the justices that it sought information about whether President Trump had obstructed justice, a topic on which Mr. Mueller failed to reach a conclusion. MICHAEL COHEN TO BE RELEASED EARLY FROM JAIL: President Trump's longtime personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen will be released from federal prison today and is expected to serve the remainder of his sentence at home. Cohen has been serving a federal prison sentence at FCI Otisville in New York after pleading guilty to numerous charges, including campaign finance fraud and lying to Congress. Cohen will be released on furlough with the expectation that he will transition to home confinement for the remainder of his sentence. 6 AM HOUR 6-A -- 6:05 AM -- INTERVIEW - LIZ SHELD - Senior Editor, American Greatness -- discuss yesterday's "Karens" in the media and the "coronavirus Karens" Mika Melts Down, Goes Full 'Karen': Brzezinski Demands Twitter Erase 'Sick, Disgusting' President Trump from Its Platform...  Mika Brzezinski @morningmika: .@twitter need to know why trump is not banned? 9:16 AM - May 20, 2020 Mika Brzezinski @morningmika: I will be reaching out to head of twitter about their policies being violated every day by President Tump. Hope my call is taken. Please retweet if you agree 9:17 AM - May 20, 2020 Video: Mika being a Karen on Morning Joe: https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1263238165650800640 CORONAVIRUS KARENS: This woman outside of a grocery store is being called a Karen. She was freaking out in her car. Is she a Karen?  https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1263208102951743488 A SUPER ANNOYING KAREN: This lady went out to video shame everyone who dared to have fun in the sun at the beach. Is she being a Karen?  https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1262173200479379456 ABOUT KARENS: Karen is a slang term that is used to typify a person perceived to be entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is considered appropriate or necessary. One of the most common Karen stereotypes is that of a white middle-aged woman, typically American, who displays aggressive behavior when she is obstructed from getting her way; such women are often depicted as demanding to "speak to the manager" and sometimes have a variation of the bob cut. The origins of Karen as an Internet meme predominately date back to an anonymous Reddit user.  (Wikipedia link) 6-B/C - VOTING NEWS: MICHIGAN MAIL IN BALLOTS: President Trump threatened to hold back federal funding from two election battleground states that are making it easier to vote by mail during the pandemic. He later backed away somewhat from that threat but stuck with his claim that widespread voting by mail promotes "a lot of illegality." Trump targeted Michigan and Nevada on Wednesday. At first he claimed Michigan was sending out more than 7 million mail-in ballots, but after criticism he corrected that to say mail-in ballot "applications." Federal judge rules in favor of mail-in ballots in Texas, says 'lack of immunity' for COVID-19 a physical condition. Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, said Tuesday that his office would appeal a federal court’s preliminary injunction that allows all registered voters in the state to apply to vote by mail while the country fights the coronavirus pandemic. “The district court’s opinion ignores the evidence and disregards well-established law,” the Texas Republican said in a statement, according to the Texas Tribune. "We will seek an immediate review by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals." The paper pointed out that the Lone Star State’s current election law only grants permission for those over 65, who have a disability or plan to be abroad at the time of the vote to apply for a mail-in ballot. Democrats are largely in favor of the voting alternative while Republicans have been critical of the option due to the risk of voter fraud. Judge Fred Biery, a district court judge in San Antonio, sided Tuesday with the state’s Democratic party. "The Court finds such fear and anxiety is inextricably intertwined with voters' physical health. Such apprehension will limit citizens' rights to cast their votes in person. The Court also finds that lack of immunity from COVID-19 is indeed a physical condition," he wrote. (Fox News link) Montgomery County Council calls on Maryland's State Board of Elections to hold emergency meeting to protect voting rights. Council expresses concerns over the distribution of ballots for Maryland’s June 2 primary election ROCKVILLE, Md., May 20, 2020—Montgomery County Councilmembers sent a letter to the Maryland State Board of Elections expressing their frustration and concern about the distribution of ballots for Maryland’s June 2 primary election. Many registered voters in Montgomery County have reported that they have not received their ballots and have reached out to the Council to voice their concerns. All Councilmembers signed the letter. “It is extremely concerning, this close to the June 2nd Maryland primary election, that there are widespread issues in delivering the appropriate absentee ballot to voters,” said Council Vice President Tom Hucker. “This is unacceptable and is increasing public anxiety and eroding confidence in our elections. The State Board of Elections needs to act immediately to ensure voters a fair and timely primary and general election. We are sending this letter to get more information on this situation and to work with the State Board on this crucial issue.” The Council has requested the Maryland State Board of Elections hold an emergency meeting to address urgent issues relating to the primary election including the timely distribution of ballots to all voters in their preferred language and to ensure that Maryland will administer the 2020 primary and general elections securely and effectively. “The Maryland State Board of Elections must do everything within its power to ensure that by perception and in reality, the coming elections are seen to be fair and just,” said Councilmember Nancy Navarro, who chairs the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee. “The issues that threaten to disenfranchise voters in our county and region must be resolved as soon as possible.” (MoCo Govt link)  More Montgomery County ballots being mailed to deceased, non-residents. A few weeks after a man described how his deceased mother was shown to have voted in Montgomery County elections for a decade after her death, another case of an illegal ballot being issued has come to light. Attorney Robin Ficker, a Republican candidate for Maryland governor, reports that his son was mailed a ballot to his old Montgomery County address. Problem: Ficker's son hasn't lived in Montgomery County for 12 years. And as a "live" ballot, it could be illegally filled out and mailed back by someone else. "Election fraud?" Ficker asked in a Facebook post showing the improperly-mailed ballot. "How many of these ballots are being mailed by someone else?" Ficker isn't the only one asking questions.  A watchdog group, Judicial Watch, has successfully sued to receive the voter registration information of all Montgomery County voters, after it found there are more names registered to vote than there are eligible voters in the county. In 2018, anomalous voting results were seen at dozens of precincts across Montgomery County in the County Council At-Large race, if not others. The voter universe in that election also increased by about 100,000 voters in only four years since 2014. Local media outlets have not challenged County officials about either issue so far. Leaving ineligible names on the voter rolls is a key source of voter fraud. Anyone who has the names of deceased or non-resident voters can walk into the appropriate polling place, claim to be that person and provide the few details asked for by judges, and cast a ballot illegally using one of those many names. In this year's by-mail elections, these illegal ballots will be mailed out and ripe for the picking by any organized voter fraud operation, further underlining the urgency in cleaning up Montgomery County's dirty voter rolls. (Robert Dyer blog link)  Flashback in April: Judicial Watch Victory: Federal Court Orders Maryland to Release Complete Voter Registration Records. (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced that a federal court ordered the State of Maryland to produce the voter list for Montgomery County that includes the registered voters’ date of birth. This court ruling is the latest in a series of victories for Judicial Watch in its lawsuit filed July 18, 2017, against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Judicial Watch filed suit for the Maryland voter list data after uncovering that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who could legally register (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)). Ruling in Judicial Watch’s favor, Judge Hollander said: "Judicial Watch need not demonstrate its need for birth date information in order to facilitate its effort to ensure that the voter rolls are properly maintained. Nevertheless, it has put forward reasonable justifications for requiring birth date information, including using birth dates to find duplicate registrations and searching for voters who remain on the rolls despite “improbable” age." In order to avoid turning over the dates of birth for Maryland voters, the Maryland Administrator of Elections, Linda Lamone, directed her staff to remove date of birth as a field on the voter registration application. Judge Hollander ruled that Lamone could not do this, saying: "Because full voter birth dates appear on completed voter registration applications, the Administrator may not bypass the Act by unilaterally revising the Application." In August 2019, Judge Hollander ruled in Judicial Watch’s favor in the same case, ordering the State of Maryland to produce voter list data for Montgomery County. Judicial Watch is the national leader in enforcing the National Voters Registration Act. (Judicial Watch link)  6-D - 6:35 AM --  INTERVIEW - CAL THOMAS - Syndicated columnist and author of new book "America's Expiration Date: The Fall of Empires and Superpowers . . . and the Future of the United States" CAL'S LATEST COLUMN: ‘Snake oil’ cures: Trump should not promote hydroxychloroquine  The name calling between Trump and Pelosi. So unseemly. Win on issues and debate them not who is crazy and who is morbidly obese. 6-E - LOCAL NEWS UPDATE: VIRGINIA / MARYLAND: Ralph Northam: No 'particular timeline' for Northern Virginia to begin first phase of reopening. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said that leaders in Northern Virginia were “following the data” in determining not to move into Phase 1 of the reopening plan with the rest of the state. The city of Alexandria and Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties, which make up most of Northern Virginia and all border either the District of Columbia or Maryland, have the state’s worst coronavirus case numbers. Local leaders told Mr. Northam in a letter that they weren’t ready to enter Phase 1 of reopening until at least May 29. “We haven’t set any particular timeline,” the Democratic governor said. “We will continue to follow that daily. We will be in communication with those (local) leaders, and when they are comfortable, and when the data supports a movement into Phase 1, we will do so.” Arlington County cancels summer camps for 2020. ARLINGTON, Va. - As the novel coronavirus lingers in the Northern Virginia region heading into late fall, Arlington County announced on Wednesday that it is canceling all summer camps for the season. In a statement from the county, officials said the decision was difficult to make. They noted that the camps could not be held with “proper social distancing and appropriate cleaning protocols or other safety measures,” and the county was not confident that it could safely host a camp session. Officials noted there too many variables needed to be accounted for ultimately. “We recognize how important camps are to our residents, and we are truly saddened to have to cancel for the summer. Ultimately, it is the best decision for the safety and health of our community. We will continue to explore opportunities to provide programs and services as national, state and local guidelines allow. We appreciate your patience as we work through this difficult time,” said Parks & Recreation Director Jane Rudolph. Anyone who was registered for an Arlington County Department of Parks and Recreation camp will receive a full refund. Anyone who signed up for a camp with a county contractor should reach out to the contractor directly for information regarding refunds. (Fox5DC link) Montgomery officials say county may start to reopen within a week. Maryland’s most populous county said Wednesday that it may lift some social distancing restrictions within the next week, another tentative step toward reopening the Washington region as the rates of novel coronavirus infections and deaths show signs of slowing. “We are moving in the right direction,” Travis Gayles, head of Montgomery County’s health department, said about plans to join other parts of the state in partially lifting restrictions on gatherings and nonessential businesses. (Washington Post link)  6-F -- Tom Brady blasted for releasing 'immunity' supplement during pandemic. Tom Brady launched a new “immunity” multivitamin supplement this week — and critics quickly tackled the quarterback for the timing of the release during the coronavirus pandemic. Brady, 42, newly signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, announced the release of the “immunity blend supplement,” called Protect, through his company, TB12 Sports, on social media Monday. “Over the years, I’ve learned how important it is to be proactive in taking care of my own body,” Brady said in a video posted to Instagram. “I’m really proud to announce this amazing new product from TB12 that will provide you guys exactly what you need to stay healthy, strong and resilient for whatever comes your way.” It is sold as a 30-day supply, or 60 tablets, for $45, according to the TB12 website. Critics bashed him on Twitter for the not-so-coincidental timing of the release — and for capitalizing on people’s fears amid the pandemic. In Brady’s new home state, nearly 47,000 coronavirus cases and over 2,000 related deaths have been reported, according to the Florida Department of Health. “Oh Tom this is so disappointing,” Julia Offord Pearman tweeted. “The marketing of this product is clearly playing on people’s fears over Covid and a belief that the immune system just needs a boost to recover from it. If it’s an athlete recovery supplement say that, don’t play up to people’s fears about Covid.”“What does your product ‘PROTECT’ us from Tom?” said a person with the handle @katherine_jj6. “Does it protect the millions out of work from being duped to pay a ridiculous amount of money for this? This is a new low for you and [business partner] Alex [Guerrero].” “The reason Tom Brady doesn’t have coronavirus isn’t an immune boosting supplement, it’s because he’s obscenely rich and can isolate unlike delivery drivers, cleaners, meat workers, grocery store workers, nurses and doctors,” wrote Dr. Kate Gregorevic, who identified herself as a geriatrician. “Using this crisis to enrich himself is disgusting.” But TB12 CEO Johns Burns told Yahoo! Sports that “now more than ever, it’s important to have daily support for a healthy immune response as our bodies are subject to constant stressors that deplete its resources.” Brady’s company touts the drug for “supporting natural killer cells” and “replenishing antibodies post-exercise,” helping to “activate your immune system and counter stress-induced immune suppression,” according to a product description. (NY Post link) 7 AM HOUR 7-A -- 7:05 AM - Interview - Erik Kiilunen - organizer of Michigan Take Yourself to Work Day (May 21) Kiilunen, a Michigan business man is leading the effort to make May 21 "Take Yourself to Work Day." He has billboards all over Michigan with the message "All Business is Essential."   Businessman Calls for Peaceful Economic Disobedience in Response to Unconstitutional COVID-19 Lockdown. Ahmeek, MI—As reported by the Associated Press, Erik Kiilunen, business owner, entrepreneur, and founder of All Business is Essential, is calling for peaceful economic disobedience against un-constitutional executive orders which have deprived American citizens of their right to attend to their businesses, their livelihoods, and their jobs. Erik Kiilunen is “encouraging business owners of all sizes to engage in Economic Disobedience" by opening their place of business regardless of "executive orders as Michigan and the USA need commerce. Without it, the poverty created by their absence will cause far greater suffering than anything that COVID-19 will ever lead to now. I’ve opened my business as an example to others.” Over the course of a few days, Mr. Kiilunen's  GoFundMe page has already amassed tens of thousands in contributions from other Americans who support Mr. Kiilunen's message of economic freedom.   As his billboards start to spring up in Grand Rapids, Detroit, and Howell, as well as across the country, Mr. Kiilunen asserts that this is only the beginning. In what is poised to be one of the most fundamentally American uprisings in US history, All Business is Essential is ready to take on anti-constitutional decrees . "All business is essential, and the government, and state governors, do not have the legal authority to pick and choose who has the right to work and feed their families, and who doesn’t....Ask a single mother running a hair salon and using the profits generated to care for her special needs child if her business is essential," says Mr. Kiilunen. 7-B/C -- LATEST ON PELOSI: Speaker Pelosi on President Trump: “It's like a child who comes in with mud on their pants...He comes in with doggy doo on his shoes and everybody who works with him has that on their shoes, too, for a very long time to come." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) expressed confidence Wednesday that the coronavirus stimulus package approved last week will garner enough public backing to force Republicans and the Trump administration to the negotiating table. The $3 trillion Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act would provide funds to local and state government, hazard pay for health care workers and another round of direct cash payments to tens of millions of Americans. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the package has “no chance” of passing. Pelosi touts $3.6B vote-by-mail bill, now called ‘Voting at Home,’ after Trump warnings to Michigan, Nevada, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday night touted a $3.6 billion vote-by-mail proposal – which she rechristened “Voting at Home” – adding that the bill also would help bolster the U.S. Postal Service. Pelosi talked about the legislation during an appearance on MSNBC just hours after President Trump warned the states of Michigan and Nevada against implementing absentee-ballot and vote-by-mail plans, arguing the proposals were illegal and could potentially facilitate voter fraud. In both cases, the president threatened to withhold federal dollars from the states if they went ahead with their plans. The legality of using mail ballots is already the basis of a lawsuit in Texas, in which a federal judge sided with Democrats in allowing the forms to be sent out to voters. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately announced his office was appealing the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Meantime, Trump has repeatedly criticized the Postal Service, calling it a “joke” and claiming it undercharges online retail giants such as Amazon. The president has said he will not support any bailout legislation for the Postal Service if the organization does not raise its service rates to generate more revenue. But in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” Pelosi stressed that the Democrats’ proposal was aimed at making voting and shopping more convenient and safe for Americans amid the coronavirus pandemic – allowing them to perform both tasks at home without exposing themselves to risk of contracting the virus. “We’re now calling it ‘Voting at Home’ because that’s really what it’s all about -- enabling people to vote at home,” Pelosi told host Lawrence O’Donnell. (Fox News link) Trump expresses opposition to extending unemployment benefits enacted in response to pandemic. President Trump on Tuesday privately expressed opposition to extending a weekly $600 boost in unemployment insurance for laid-off workers affected by the coronavirus pandemic, according to three officials familiar with his remarks during a closed-door lunch with Republican senators on Capitol Hill. The increased unemployment benefits — paid by the federal government but administered through individual states — were enacted this year as part of a broader $2 trillion relief package passed by Congress. The boost expires this summer, and House Democrats have proposed extending the aid through January 2021. (Washington Post link) 7-D/E  -- 7:35 AM - INTERVIEW - TOM FITTON - President of Judicial Watch Montgomery County Council calls on Maryland's State Board of Elections to hold emergency meeting to protect voting rights. Council expresses concerns over the distribution of ballots for Maryland’s June 2 primary election ROCKVILLE, Md., May 20, 2020—Montgomery County Councilmembers sent a letter to the Maryland State Board of Elections expressing their frustration and concern about the distribution of ballots for Maryland’s June 2 primary election. Many registered voters in Montgomery County have reported that they have not received their ballots and have reached out to the Council to voice their concerns. All Councilmembers signed the letter. “It is extremely concerning, this close to the June 2nd Maryland primary election, that there are widespread issues in delivering the appropriate absentee ballot to voters,” said Council Vice President Tom Hucker. “This is unacceptable and is increasing public anxiety and eroding confidence in our elections. The State Board of Elections needs to act immediately to ensure voters a fair and timely primary and general election. We are sending this letter to get more information on this situation and to work with the State Board on this crucial issue.” The Council has requested the Maryland State Board of Elections hold an emergency meeting to address urgent issues relating to the primary election including the timely distribution of ballots to all voters in their preferred language and to ensure that Maryland will administer the 2020 primary and general elections securely and effectively. “The Maryland State Board of Elections must do everything within its power to ensure that by perception and in reality, the coming elections are seen to be fair and just,” said Councilmember Nancy Navarro, who chairs the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee. “The issues that threaten to disenfranchise voters in our county and region must be resolved as soon as possible.” (MoCo Govt link)  More Montgomery County ballots being mailed to deceased, non-residents. A few weeks after a man described how his deceased mother was shown to have voted in Montgomery County elections for a decade after her death, another case of an illegal ballot being issued has come to light. Attorney Robin Ficker, a Republican candidate for Maryland governor, reports that his son was mailed a ballot to his old Montgomery County address. Problem: Ficker's son hasn't lived in Montgomery County for 12 years. And as a "live" ballot, it could be illegally filled out and mailed back by someone else. "Election fraud?" Ficker asked in a Facebook post showing the improperly-mailed ballot. "How many of these ballots are being mailed by someone else?" Ficker isn't the only one asking questions.  A watchdog group, Judicial Watch, has successfully sued to receive the voter registration information of all Montgomery County voters, after it found there are more names registered to vote than there are eligible voters in the county. In 2018, anomalous voting results were seen at dozens of precincts across Montgomery County in the County Council At-Large race, if not others. The voter universe in that election also increased by about 100,000 voters in only four years since 2014. Local media outlets have not challenged County officials about either issue so far. Leaving ineligible names on the voter rolls is a key source of voter fraud. Anyone who has the names of deceased or non-resident voters can walk into the appropriate polling place, claim to be that person and provide the few details asked for by judges, and cast a ballot illegally using one of those many names. In this year's by-mail elections, these illegal ballots will be mailed out and ripe for the picking by any organized voter fraud operation, further underlining the urgency in cleaning up Montgomery County's dirty voter rolls. (Robert Dyer blog link)  Flashback in April: Judicial Watch Victory: Federal Court Orders Maryland to Release Complete Voter Registration Records. (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced that a federal court ordered the State of Maryland to produce the voter list for Montgomery County that includes the registered voters’ date of birth. This court ruling is the latest in a series of victories for Judicial Watch in its lawsuit filed July 18, 2017, against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Judicial Watch filed suit for the Maryland voter list data after uncovering that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who could legally register (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)). Ruling in Judicial Watch’s favor, Judge Hollander said: "Judicial Watch need not demonstrate its need for birth date information in order to facilitate its effort to ensure that the voter rolls are properly maintained. Nevertheless, it has put forward reasonable justifications for requiring birth date information, including using birth dates to find duplicate registrations and searching for voters who remain on the rolls despite “improbable” age." In order to avoid turning over the dates of birth for Maryland voters, the Maryland Administrator of Elections, Linda Lamone, directed her staff to remove date of birth as a field on the voter registration application. Judge Hollander ruled that Lamone could not do this, saying: "Because full voter birth dates appear on completed voter registration applications, the Administrator may not bypass the Act by unilaterally revising the Application." In August 2019, Judge Hollander ruled in Judicial Watch’s favor in the same case, ordering the State of Maryland to produce voter list data for Montgomery County. Judicial Watch is the national leader in enforcing the National Voters Registration Act. (Judicial Watch link)  8 AM HOUR 8-A -- 8:05 AM - CHRIS CUOMO AND HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE: Flashback: CNN’s Cuomo Mocks Trump Over Hydroxychloroquine — A Version Of It Was Included In His Own COVID-19 Treatment. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo mocked President Donald Trump on Monday for announcing that he had been taking anti-malarial drugs as a preventative treatment for coronavirus even though he had also used a version of the drug in his own COVID-19 treatment regimen. In a late Monday tweet after Trump’s announcement, Cuomo responded to a video of Florida police breaking up a block party by saying “No worries. They can just take some chloroquine.” Cuomo also said in the opening of Monday’s Cuomo Prime Time that “the president knows that Hydroxychloroquine is not supported by science. He knows it has been flagged by people in his own administration” and called it a distraction from “his lack of a plan or real solutions.” Cuomo had been using a version of the anti-malarial drug in his own treatment for coronavirus, according to posts about his treatment protocol written by his wife, Cristina, in her wellness magazine “The Purist.” (Daily Caller link) Kayleigh McEnany Rips CNN’s Chris Cuomo For Taking ‘Less Safe Version’ Of Hydroxychloroquine. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany called out CNN anchor Chris Cuomo Wednesday for mocking President Donald Trump for taking hydroxychloroquine after Cuomo took a less safe version of the drug for his coronavirus treatment. “You had Chris Cuomo saying the president knows that hydroxychloroquine is not supported by science, he knows it has been flagged by his own people and he’s using it,” McEnany said at Wednesday’s White House press briefing. “Cuomo mocked the president for this” but “it turns out that Chris Cuomo took a less safe version of it called quinine, which the FDA removed from the market in 2006 because it had serious side effects, including death. So really interesting to have that criticism of the president.” ( Daily Caller link) From Chris Cuomo's wife's blog:  I enlisted Dr. Linda Lancaster, who put my husband on a path of natural remedies to strengthen his immune system—and now mine–and it’s working for us. (Blog link)  CRAZY LECTURE FROM the "Doctor" (Dr. Linda Lancaster) that Chris Cuomo's wife was getting coronavirus treatment advice from (that included bathing in bleach...) LAST NIGHT: Chris Cuomo teases brother Andrew Cuomo with giant test swab. Chris Cuomo teases brother Andrew with a prop of a giant test swab. CNN's Chris Cuomo jokes with his brother, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, about the size of his nose. On May 17, the governor was tested for Covid-19 on live television to encourage others to get tested. CNN's Chris Cuomo does prop comedy with NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, fails to ask about nursing-home controversy.CNN anchor Chris Cuomo again did not address the growing nursing-home controversy in his latest interview with his brother, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and instead performed some prop comedy on Wednesday night. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, recently reversed a March 25 order that forced nursing homes to accept patients who tested positive for coronavirus, despite testing deficiencies for both residents and staff. Cuomo signed an executive order on May 11 stopping hospitals from sending infected patients back to nursing homes and ramping up testing for staff. 8-B/C  -- FL GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS SLAPS THE MEDIA: Fla. Gov. DeSantis Scorches Media For Dire Florida Predictions: ‘Hell, We’re 8 Weeks Away From That’. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis unloaded on members of the media Wednesday over their extremely grim predictions for his state, saying that the media “waxed poetically for weeks and weeks” about how bad Florida would look. “Our data is available, our data is transparent, in fact Dr. Birx has talked multiple times about how Florida has the absolute best data, so any insinuation otherwise is just typical partisan narrative trying to be spun,” DeSantis said. “And part of the reason is because you got a lot of people in your profession who waxed poetically for weeks and weeks about how Florida was going to be just like New York: wait two weeks Florida’s going to be next, just like Italy, wait two weeks.” “Well hell, we’re eight weeks away from that, and it hasn’t happened. Not only do we have a lower death rate–well we have way lower deaths generally–we have a lower death rate than the Acela Corridor, DC, everyone up there,” the governor continued. Where Does Ron DeSantis Go to Get His Apology? (By RICH LOWRY/NATIONAL REVIEW) - The Florida governor explains a COVID-19 strategy that has gotten bad press and favorable results. A couple of months ago, the media, almost as one, decided that Governor Ron DeSantis was a public menace who was going to get Floridians killed with his lax response to the coronavirus crisis. In an interview with National Review, DeSantis says he was surprised at “how knee-jerk” the hostile coverage was, but he “also knew that none of these people knew anything about Florida at all, so I didn’t care what they were saying.” The conventional wisdom has begun to change about Florida, as the disaster so widely predicted hasn’t materialized. It’s worth delving into the state’s response — as described by DeSantis and a couple of members of his team — because it is the opposite of the media narrative of a Trump-friendly governor disregarding the facts to pursue a reckless agenda. DeSantis and his team have followed the science closely from the beginning, which is why they forged a nuanced approach, but one that focused like a laser on the most vulnerable population, those in nursing homes. An irony of the national coverage of the coronavirus crisis is that at the same time DeSantis was being made into a villain, New York governor Andrew Cuomo was being elevated as a hero, even though the DeSantis approach to nursing homes was obviously superior to that of Cuomo. Florida went out of its way to get COVID-19-positive people out of nursing homes, while New York went out of its way to get them in, a policy now widely acknowledged to have been a debacle. The media didn’t exactly have their eyes on the ball. “The day that the media had their first big freakout about Florida was March 15th,” DeSantis recalls, “which was, there were people on Clearwater Beach, and it was this big deal. That same day is when we signed the executive order to, one, ban visitation in the nursing homes, and two, ban the reintroduction of a COVID-positive patient back into a nursing home.” DeSantis is bemused by the obsession with Florida’s beaches. When they opened in Jacksonville, it was a big national story, usually relayed with a dire tone. “Jacksonville has almost no COVID activity outside of a nursing-home context,” he says. “Their hospitalizations are down, ICU down since the beaches opened a month ago. And yet, nobody talks about it. It’s just like, ‘Okay, we just move on to the next target.’” 8-D -- 8:35 AM -- INTERVIEW - SHELLEY LUTHER - formerly jailed Dallas salon owner TX SALON OWNER WENT TO MICHIGAN ON MONDAY TO HELP A BARBER REBELLING AGAINST WHITMER’S LOCKDOWN: Dallas salon owner who was jailed over coronavirus rules travels to Michigan to support defiant barber. A Texas salon owner who was sent to jail for opening her business during the coronavirus outbreak called Michigan's governor a "tyrant" on Monday as she stood next to a barber whose license was suspended for cutting hair.  "Gretchen, the state of Michigan will vote you out," Shelley Luther declared, referring to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Luther traveled to Owosso, a small Michigan town, to express support for Karl Manke. The 77-year-old barber reopened his shop for more than a week before state regulators suspended his license. Luther, the owner of Salon a la Mode in Dallas, was sentenced to a week in jail for flouting public health orders intended to slow the spread of the coronavirus. She was released less than 48 hours later when Gov. Greg Abbott dropped jail as a possible punishment for violations. "Why does your governor think that it's OK to open up for marijuana, liquor sales?" said Luther, whose boyfriend grew up an hour away in Frankenmuth. "Can't you get an abortion? But you cannot get your hair cut. What is wrong? "Stop being a tyrant," Luther said of the governor. "Open up. You don't get this control. We control you. We have the power." Whitmer has defended the business restrictions as an important way to stop the virus. She relented a bit Monday by announcing plans to reopen bars and restaurants Friday in the Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula, which haven't been hit as hard as the rest of Michigan. (CBS News) ‘Operation Haircut’: Michigan Barbers Defy Lockdown, Offer Haircuts On Capitol Lawn. Anti-lockdown protesters gathered in Lansing on the lawn of the Michigan state capitol Wednesday to get a haircut. With barbershops and salons closed indefinitely due to the state’s coronavirus lockdown, barbers are scheduled to cut hair on the capitol lawn for three hours Wednesday afternoon. The protest, called “operation haircut,” was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, and is the latest example of Michiganders clashing with Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has enacted some of the strictest coronavirus restrictions in the nation. The Michigan Department of State Police threatened to issue citations to those giving or receiving haircuts. “All individuals engaging in haircuts are being educated on the law. Those who do not comply will be cited for disorderly conduct,” the department tweeted. (Daily Caller link) LAST WEEK: Michigan Barber Has Licenses Suspended After Defying Shutdown Orders. State officials said Karl Manke’s decision to reopen his shop during the coronavirus pandemic jeopardized public health and safety. A Michigan barber who reopened his shop in defiance of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s orders had his business and professional licenses suspended, the latest step in his escalating battle with the state. The barber, Karl Manke, 77, who has been cutting hair in Owosso, Mich., for almost 60 years, likened Michigan under Ms. Whitmer, a Democrat, to “a police state.” He said he planned to keep cutting hair, despite the suspension of his licenses. “I’m not closing up; I’m not caving in to this,” he said on Wednesday, adding: “I’m not a rabble-rouser and I’m not a scofflaw. I’m a small-town barber. I just want to make my living.” Mr. Manke is just one of the latest business owners to defy orders to keep their doors closed to help slow the spread of the coronavirus. (NY Times link)   ======================================================================= Mornings on the Mall Podcast - 2020-5-21 [00:00:00] 4:59 am - Mornings on the Mall [01:00:16] 6:00 am - Mornings on the Mall [02:00:26] 7:00 am - Mornings on the Mall [03:00:35] 8:00 am - Mornings on the Mall

The United States system of government depends on the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches keeping each other accountable, but what happens when two of the branches refuse to police the third? We might soon find out. In this episode, by examining the Attorney General William Barr's response to the release of the Mueller report, learn about recent events which foreshadow our system of government being tested in ways it hasn't been tested before. _________________________________________________  Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! ____________________________________________________ Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD191: The "Democracies" of Elliott Abrams CD143: Trumps Law Enforcers  _____________________________________________________  Additional Reading   Article: Barr Serving as Powerful Ally for Trump by Tom Hamburger, Washington Post, May 16, 2019. Article: Is this the Official Trump Constitutional Crisis? by Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker, May 9, 2019. Podcast Episode: Mueller Report Audio, Timberlane Media, May 4, 2019. Article: Trump Finds in Barr the Attorney General — and shield — he long sought by Matt Zapotosky,Josh Dawsey,Tom Hamburger and Ashley Parker, Washington Post, May 2, 2019. Letter: Erik Prince Criminal Referal Letter, by Adam Schiff, Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence U.S. House of Representatives, April 30, 2019. Article: Mueller Complained that Barr's Letter did not Capture Context of Trump's Probe by Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotsky, The Washington Post, April 30, 2019. Article: Barr's Playbook: He Misled Congress by Ryan Goodman, Just Security, April 15, 2019. Article: Joe Biden's 2020 Ukranian Nightmare: A Closed Probe is Revived by John Solomon, The Hill, April 1, 2019. Article: Justice Under AG Barr Began Vast Surveillance Program Without Legal Review by Brad Heath, USA Today, March 28, 2019. Report: Mueller Letter to Barr on Russian Interference of 2016 Presidential Election by U.S. Department of Justice, Special Counsel's Office, March 27, 2019. Document: AG Barr’s 4 Page Summary by William Barr Attorney General of the United States, March 24, 2019. Document: Jen Briney Highlighted Mueller Report by Jen Briney, March 2019. Article: Attorney General Nominee Wrote Memo Critizing Mueller Obstruction Probe by Devlin Barrett, Washington Post, December 20, 2018. Article: Trump is compromised by Russia by by Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times, November 29, 2018. Memo: Memo from Bill Barr to Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Meullers "Obstruction" Theory by Bill Barr, June 8, 2018. Article: Paul Manafort's complicated ties to Ukraine explained by Amber Phillips, Washington Post, August 19, 2016. Article: Donald Trump Aide Paul Manafort Scrutinized for Russian Business Ties  by Tom Winter and Ken Dilanian, NBC News, August 18, 2016. Document: Manafort/Gates Indictment by United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Article: U.S. Secretly Tracked Billions of Calls for Decades by Brad Heath, USA Today, April 7, 2015. Article: Obama, Holder Catch Heat for Close Ties by Carrie Johnson, NPR, July 9, 2010. Article: William P. Barr Oral History  UVA Miller Center, April 5, 2001. Article: Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair by David Johnston, The New York Times, December 25, 1992. Article: Nominee Barr an Unusual Path to Attorney Generals Office by Sharon LaFraniere, The Washington Post, November 12, 1991. Article: U.S. "Power" on Abductions Detailed by Michael Isikoff, Washington Post, August 14, 1991 Article: In Panama, An Illegal and Unwarranted Invasion by Matthew Rothschild, The Chicago Tribune, December 21, 1989. Letter: Crawford's Reply to Edwards by Honorable Don Edwards, The U.S. Department of Justice, November 7, 1989. Article: FBI Gets OK for Overseas Arrests by Ronald J. Ostrow, LA Times, October 13, 1989.   _____________________________________________________ Sound Clip Sources Press Conference: Speical Counsel Robert Mueller Statement on Russian Investigation, May 29, 2019. 4:10 Special Counsel Robert Mueller: The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president can not be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. 5:40 Special Counsel Robert Mueller: First, the opinion explicitly explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. 6:10 Special Counsel Robert Mueller: And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. Hearing: Attorney General William Barr Contempt Resolution, House Judiciary Committee, May 8, 2019. 14:40 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY): I urge my colleagues to think about how the department’s latest position and their insistence on ignoring our subpoena effects our committee, over time. Our fight is not just about the Mueller report, although we must have access to the Mueller report. Our fight is about defending the rights of Congress as an independent branch to hold the president, any president, accountable. 15:20 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY): The chairman of the oversight and Reform Committee has been sued in his personal capacity to prevent them from acquiring certain financial records from the Trump organization. 15:30 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY): The president has stated that his administration will oppose all subpoenas, and in fact, virtually all document requests are going unsatisfied. Witnesses are refusing to show up at hearings. This is unprecedented. If allowed to go unchecked, this obstruction means the end of congressional oversight. As a coequal branch of government, we should not and cannot allow this to continue, or we will not be a coequal branch of government. Hearing: William Barr Testifies on Mueller Report, Senate Judiciary Committee, May 1, 2019. 7:50 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): I would like to do more to harden our infrastructure because the Russians did it. It wasn’t some 400 pound guy sitting on a bed somewhere. It was the Russians, and they’re still doing it. And it can be the Chinese, it could be somebody next. So my takeaway from this report is that we’ve got a lot of work to do to defend democracy against the Russians and other bad actors. And I promise the committee we will get on. Would that work? Hopefully in a bipartisan fashion. 9:20 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): This is what Strzok said on February 12th, 2016 “Now he’s in charge of the Clinton email investigation”. 11:25 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): “Trump is a fucking idiot”. 17:05 Sen. Diane Feinstein (CA: First Special Counsel Mueller’s report confirms that the Russian government implemented a social media campaign to mislead millions of Americans. 32:50 Attorney General William Barr: The special counsel investigated whether anyone affiliated with president Trump’s campaign conspired or coordinated with these criminal schemes. They concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that there had been any conspiracy or coordination with the Russian government or the IRA. 33:40 Attorney General William Barr: Now we first heard that the special council’s decision not to decide the obstruction issue at at the March 5th meeting when he came over to the department and we were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. We asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for Special Council Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that, but for the OLC’s opinion, he would have found obstruction. 34:40 Attorney General William Barr: Once we heard that the special counsel was not reaching a conclusion on obstruction, the deputy and I discussed and agreed that the department had to reach a decision. We had the responsibility to assess the evidence as set forth in the report and to make the judgment. I say this because the special counsel was appointed to carry out the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the department and to do it as part of the Department of Justice. The powers he was using, including the power of using a grand jury and using compulsory process exists for that purpose. The function of the Department of Justice in this arena (which is to determine whether or not there has been criminal conduct). It’s a binary decision. Is there enough evidence to show a crime and do we believe a crime has been committed? 35:30 Attorney General William Barr: We don’t conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public, we do so to make a decision. 35:40 Attorney General William Barr: And here we thought there was an additional reason, which is this was a very public investigation and we had made clear that the results of the investigation we’re going to be made public, and the deputy and I felt that the evidence developed by the special counsel was not sufficient to establish that the president committed a crime, and therefore it would be irresponsible and unfair for the department to release a report without stating the department’s conclusions and thus leave it hanging as to whether the department considered there had been criminal conduct. 38:13 Attorney General William Barr: We prepared the letter for that purpose. To state the bottom line conclusions. We use the language from the report to state those bottom line conclusions. I analogize it to announcing after an extended trial what the verdict of the trial is, pending release of the full transcript. 38:40 Attorney General William Barr: We were not trying to summarize the 410 page report. 44:05 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Very quickly, give us your reasoning why you think it would be inappropriate to proceed forward on obstruction of justice in this case. Attorney General William Barr: Well, um, generally speaking, an obstruction case, uh, typically has two aspects to it. One, there’s usually an underlying criminality that… Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Let’s stop right here. Attorney General William Barr: Yeah Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Was there an underlying crime here? Attorney General William Barr: No. 48:00 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Do you think the President’s campaign in 2016 was thoroughly looked at in terms of whether or not they colluded with the Russians? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): And the answer is no according to Bob Mahler. Attorney General William Barr: That’s right. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): He couldn’t decide about obstruction, you did. Is that correct? Attorney General William Barr: That’s right. 1:02:08 Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): In volume two of the report, the special council declined to make a traditional prosecutorial decision. Instead, the special council laid out 200 or so pages relating to a potential obstruction analysis and then dumped that on your desk. In your press conference you said that you asked the special council whether he would have made a charging decision or recommended charges on obstruction, but for the office of legal console’s opinion on charging sitting presidents, and that the special counsel made clear that was not the case. So Mr. Barr, is that an accurate description of your conversation with the special council? Attorney General William Barr: Yes, he, he reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction. Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Yeah. If the special console found facts as sufficient to constitute obstruction of justice, would he have stated that finding? Attorney General William Barr: If he had found that, then I think he would state it. Yes. Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Yeah. 1:03:45 Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Do you agree with the reasons that he offered for not making a decision and Volume II of his report and why or why not? Attorney General William Barr: Well, I’m not really sure of his reasoning. I really could not recapitulate his analysis, which is one of the reasons in my March 24th letter. I simply stated the fact that he did not reach a conclusion and didn’t try to put words in his mouth. Um, I think that if he felt that he shouldn’t have gone down the path of making a traditional prosecuted decision, then he shouldn’t have investigated. That was the time to, uh, pull up. Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Okay. 1:37:53 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you first learn of the New York Times and Washington Post stories that would make the existence of this letter public? The ones that came out last night? Attorney General William Barr: I think it could have been yesterday, but I’m not sure. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When they contacted you to ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: They didn’t contact me. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)*: Contact to DOJ and ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: I can’t actually remember how it came up, but someone mentioned it. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): So you…at some point you knew that the Mueller letter was going to become public and that was probably yesterday? Attorney General William Barr: I think so. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay. When did you decide to make that letter available to us in Congress Attorney General William Barr: This morning. 1:37:53 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you first learn of the New York Times and Washington Post stories that would make the existence of this letter public? The ones that came out last night? Attorney General William Barr: I think it could have been yesterday, but I’m not sure. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When they contacted you to ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: They didn’t contact me. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)*: Contact to DOJ and ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: I can’t actually remember how it came up, but someone mentioned it. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): So you…at some point you knew that the Mueller letter was going to become public and that was probably yesterday? Attorney General William Barr: I think so. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay. When did you decide to make that letter available to us in Congress Attorney General William Barr: This morning. 1:40:30 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): The… Attorney General William Barr: As I said, I wasn’t interested in putting out summaries. Period. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Well, you know, we can… Attorney General William Barr: Frankly… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): This is another hairsplitting exercise because Bob Mueller, (who I think we all agree is fairly credible) actually described your letter as a summary. So you can say it wasn’t a summary, but Mueller said it was a summary and I don’t think… Attorney General William Barr: I wasn’t interested in summarizing the whole report. As I say, I was stating that the bottom line conclusions of the report… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Your letter said it’s intended to describe the report, I quote your words… Attorney General William Barr: Yeah, describe the report meaning volume one [inaudible] Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When you describe the report in four pages and it’s a 400 page report, I don’t know why you’re cowboying about whether it’s a summary or not. Attorney General William Barr: Because I state in the letter that I’m stating that the principle conclusions. 1:41:13 Attorney General William Barr: You know, Bob Mueller is the equivalent of a US attorney. He was exercising the powers of the attorney general subject to the supervision of the attorney general. He’s part of the Department of Justice. His work concluded when he sent his report to the attorney general. At that point, it was my baby. 1:42:59 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Um, the interesting thing to me is that it goes on to say that because of the OLC opinion, we have to give the president an extra benefit of the doubt because he is denied his day in court where he could exonerate himself. That seems like a fallacy to me because if you are the president of the United States, you can either waive or readily override the OLC opinion and say, “I’m ready to go to trial.” “I want to exonerate myself.” “Let’s go.” Could you not? Attorney General William Barr: How is this relevant to my decisions? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): It’s relevant… Attorney General William Barr: Because I assumed that there was no OLC opinion. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Well, we have a report in front of us that says that this influenced the outcome. And in particular it says it influenced the outcome because it deprived the president of his ability to have his day in court. And my point to you is that the president could easily have his day in court by simply waving or overriding this OLC opinion that has no judicial basis. Correct? Attorney General William Barr: Well, I don’t…I don’t think that there was anything to have a day in court on. I think that the government did not have a prosecutable case, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): but part…well Mueller obviously didn’t agree because he left that up to you. Attorney General William Barr: Well… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): He said that he could neither confirm nor deny that there was a prosecutable case here. He left that to you and when he did, he said, and you apparently have agreed that this OLC opinion bears on it, and then it would be unfair to the president to put them to the burden of being indicted and not having the ability to be charged himself… Attorney General William Barr: I don’t want to characterize…have Bob’s thought process on this. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): I’m not asking you to characterize it. It’s in his report. He’s put it in writing. Attorney General William Barr: I’m not sure what he means by that in the report. 1:54:13 Sen. John Kennedy (LA): Tell me again briefly why Mr. Mueller told you he reached no conclusion…or he couldn’t make up his mind or whatever. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. Attorney General William Barr: I really couldn’t recapitulate it. I… it was unclear to us. 2:31:25 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): The special council specifically said (at the same time I’m quoting), "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. He said it again at page 182, and yet in your summary and in the press room conference that you did, you in effect cleared the president on both so-called collusion. Attorney General William Barr: Yeah. The difference is that I use the proper standard. Um, that statement you just read is actually a very strange statement. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): For four of the specific obstruction episodes, Robert Mueller concluded that it was substantial evidence on four on the three necessary elements of obstruction. Attorney General William Barr: Well, you’re…you’re on. You’re a prospect… Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): I have to finish my question with all… Attorney General William Barr: You haven’t let me finish my answer. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Well, uh, let me just finish the… Chairman Lindsay Graham (SC): We can do both. Attorney General William Barr: Alright, good. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Uh, you ignored in that press conference and in the summary that Robert Mueller found substantial evidence and it’s in the report, and we have a chart that shows the elements of that crime. Intent, interference with an ongoing investigation and the obstructive act. 2:38:35 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): You started by citing this thing in Volume II about how the report says that they could not be sure that they could clearly say that he did not violate the law. As you know, that’s not the standard we use in the criminal justice system. It’s presumed that if someone is innocent and the government has to prove that they clearly violated the law. We’re not in the business of exoneration. We’re not in the business of proving they didn’t violate law. Attorney General William Barr: I found that whole act very… Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): …exonerated him in your press conference and in your four page summary Attorney General William Barr: How did that start? I didn’t hear the beginning of the question? Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): You in effect exonerated or cleared the president? Attorney General William Barr: No, I didn’t exonerate. I said that we did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to establish an obstruction offense, which is the job of the Justice Department and the job of the Justice Department is now over. That determines whether or not there’s a crime. The report is now in the hands of the American people. Everyone can decide for themselves. There’s an election in 18 months. That’s very democratic process, but we’re out of it and we have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon. 2:50:30 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): You lied to Congress. You told Representative Charlie Krist that you didn’t know what objections Mueller’s team might have to your March 24th so-called summary. You told Senator Chris Van Hollen that you didn’t know if Bob Mueller supported your conclusions, but you knew you lied, and now we know. 2:51:10 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): I expected you would try to protect the president, and indeed you did. In 1989…this isn’t something you hadn’t done before. In 1989, when you refuse to show Congress and OLC opinion that led to the arrest of Manual Noriega. In 1992, when you recommended partners for the subjects of the Iran Contra scandal and last year when you wrote the 19 page memo, telling “Donald Trump as president”, can’t be guilty of obstruction of justice, and then didn’t recuse yourself from the matter. From the beginning, you are addressing an audience of one. That person being Donald Trump. 3:00:40 Attorney General William Barr: How did we get to the point here where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent. And the evidence now is that was without a basis and two years of his administration, uh, have been dominated by the allegations that have now been proven false. And you know, to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think that the Mueller report and found the opposite. 3:18:14 Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): In your March 24th summary, you wrote: “After reviewing the special council’s final report, deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense.” Now the special council’s investigation produced a great deal of evidence. Um, I’ve led to believe it included witnesses, notes and emails, witnesses, congressional testimony, witnesses, interviews, um, which were summarized in the FBI 302 forms, former FBI Director Columbia’s memos and the president’s public statements. My question is, in reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, no. We took a… we excepted… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did…Did Mr Rosenstein…? Attorney General William Barr: No, we accepted the statements in the report as the factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate and made our… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): So you accepted the report as the evidence? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): You did not question or look at the underlying evidence that supports the conclusions in the report? Attorney General William Barr: No. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did, uh, Mr Rosenstein review the evidence that underlines and supports the conclusions in the report…to your knowledge? Attorney General William Barr: Not to my knowledge. We accepted the statements in the report. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did anyone in your… Attorney General William Barr: The characterization of the evidence is true. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report? Attorney General William Barr: No. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): No. 3:20:17 Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): As the Attorney General of the United States, you run the United States Department of Justice. If in any US attorney’s office around the country, the head of that office, when being asked to make a critical decision about in this case the person who holds the highest office in the land and whether or not that person committed a crime. Would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they’d had not reviewed the evidence? Attorney General William Barr: Well, that’s a question for Bob Mueller. He’s the U.S. Attorney. He’s the one who presents the report. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): But it was you who made the charging decisions there. You made the decision not to charge the president Attorney General William Barr: No, in the pross memo and in the declination memo… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): You said it was your baby. What did you mean by that? Attorney General William Barr: It was my baby to let, to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): And whose decision was it,? Who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice? Attorney General William Barr: Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor. In this case, it was the…you know, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, who… who decide on the final decision, and that is based on the memo as presented by the US Attorney’s office. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I think you’ve made it clear that you’ve not looked at…we can move on. I think you’ve made it clear Sir that you’ve not looked at the evidence and we can move on. 3:22:25 Attorney General William Barr: You know I haven’t been the only decision maker here. Now let’s take the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who was approved by the Senate 94 to 6 with specific discussion on the floor that he would be responsible for supervising the Russian investing. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I’m glad you brought up that. That’s a great topic. Attorney General William Barr: He has 30 years experience and we had a number of senior prosecutors in the department involved in this process, both career and non-career. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Yes, I’ve, I’ve, I’ve, I’ve read a lot . I have another question and I’m glad you brought that subject up because I have a question about that. Earlier today in response to Senator Graham, you said quote “that you consulted with Rosenstein constantly” With respect to the special council’s investigation report, but Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is also a key witness and the firing of FBI Director Comey. Did you consult with…? I’m not finished. Attorney General William Barr: Yeah? Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did you consult with DOJ Ethics officials before you enlisted Rod Rosenstein to participate in a charging decision for an investigation? The subject, of which; he is also a witness. Attorney General William Barr: My understanding was that he had been cleared already to participate in it. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): So you had consulted with them and they cleared it? Attorney General William Barr: No, I think they cleared it when he took over the investigation. Did you consider?.. Attorney General William Barr: That’s my understanding? I am…I Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): You don’t know whether he’s been cleared of a conflict of interest? Attorney General William Barr: You would be participating if there was a conflict of interest. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): So you’re saying that it did not need to be reviewed by the career ethics officials in your office? Attorney General William Barr: I believe, well I believe it was reviewed and I… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): and what role should find…? Attorney General William Barr: I would also point out that this seems to be a bit of a flip flop because when the president’s supporters were challenging Rosenstein Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I think in this case that you’re not answering the question directly. Attorney General William Barr: What? Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did the ethics officials in your office, in the Department of Justice, review the appropriateness of Rod Rosenstein being a part of making a charging decision on an investigation, which he is also a witness in? Attorney General William Barr: Yeah. So as I said, my understanding was he had been cleared and he had been cleared before I arrived. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): In making a decision on the Mueller report? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): And, and the findings of whether or not the case would be charged on obstruction of justice? Had he been cleared on that? Attorney General William Barr: He was, he was the acting Attorney General on the Mueller investigation. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Had he been cleared? Attorney General William Barr: He had been, I am… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): By your side recommendation? Attorney General William Barr: I am informed before I arrived, he had been cleared by the ethics officials. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Of what? Attorney General William Barr: Serving as acting Attorney General on the Mueller case. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): How about making a charging decision on obstruction of justice? Attorney General William Barr: That is what the acting… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): With the lack of offenses, which include him as a witness? Attorney General William Barr: Yeah. He, that’s what the acting Attorney General’s job is. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): To be a witness and to make the decision about being a prosecutor? Attorney General William Barr: Well. No. But the big charging decisions. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I have nothing else. My time has run out. 3:45:15 Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): And President Trump. I am correcting my earlier statement, never allowed anybody to interview him directly under oath. Is that correct? Attorney General William Barr: I think that’s correct. Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): Even though he said he’s ready to testify. Thank you. 3:45:42 Attorney General William Barr: The absence of an underlying crime doesn’t necessarily mean that there would be other motives for obstruction. Although, it gets a little bit harder to prove and more speculative as to what those motives might be. But the point I was trying to make earlier, is that in this situation of the president, (who has constitutional authority to supervise proceedings), if in fact a proceeding was not well founded. If it was a groundless proceeding, if it was based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused and he would be worried about the impact on his administration. That’s important, because most of the obstruction claims that are being made here or, episodes, do involve the exercise of the president’s constitutional authority. And we now know that he was being falsely accused. 3:52:05 Attorney General William Barr: Right after March 5th, we started discussing what the implications of this were and how we would… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And you made the decision when? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, probably on Sunday the 24th. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): That’s the day the letter came out? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. We made the decision… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And make the decision until the letter came out? Attorney General William Barr: No. No. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): You must have told somebody how to write the letter, you couldn’t… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you actually decide that there was no obstruction? Attorney General William Barr: The 24th. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay. 3:52:35 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you get the first draft of the Mueller report? Attorney General William Barr: The, the first?.. It wasn’t a draft. We got the final. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): The first version of it that you saw? Attorney General William Barr: Well, the only version of it I saw. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay, the only version for you Sir. When you do first? Attorney General William Barr: The 22nd Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): The 22nd 3:52:50 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Now you told Senator Harris that you made your decision on the obstruction charge, you and Rosenstein, based on the Mueller report. Did I correctly infer that you made that decision then between the 22nd and the 24th? Attorney General William Barr: Well, we had had a lot of discussions about it before the 22nd but then the final decision was made on the 24th Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): and you didn’t… Attorney General William Barr: We had more than two and a half days to consider this. LLC had already done a lot of thinking about some of these issues even before, uh, the…we got the report. 4:03:30 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): This letter was an extraordinary act. A career prosecutor would rebuking the Attorney General of the United States memorializing in writing. Right? I know of no other incidents of that happening. Do you? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, I don’t consider Bob at this stage, a career prosecutor. He’s had a career as a prosecutor. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Well, he was a very eminent… Attorney General William Barr: Who was the head of the FBI for 12 years? Um… Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): He’s a career…He’s had a, he’s… law enforcement professional? Attorney General William Barr: Right? Yup. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): I know of no other instances of… Attorney General William Barr: But he was also political appointee and he was a political appointee with me at the Department of Justice. I don’t, I, you know, the letters a bit snitty and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Did you make a memorandum of your conversation? Attorney General William Barr: Huh? Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Did you make a memory? Attorney General William Barr: No, I didn’t need anyone else around them. What? Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Did anyone, either you or anyone on your staff memorialize your conversation with Robert Mueller? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT):Who did that? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, there were notes taken of the call. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): May We have those notes? Attorney General William Barr: No. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT):Why not? Attorney General William Barr: Why should you have them? Hearing: Attorney General Barr News Conference on Mueller Report Release, Department of Justice, April 18, 2019. 4:00 Attorney General William Barr: As the Special Counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election. But thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter. 9:30 Attorney General William Barr: Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. 10:30 Attorney General William Barr: In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. 18:00 Attorney General William Barr: But I will say that when we met with him, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him, along with Ed o’Callaghan, who is the principal associate deputy, on March 5th. We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.” 19:30 Attorney General William Barr: And we don’t go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public. We collect this information. We use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision. And because the special counsel did not make that decision, we felt the department had to. That was a decision by me and the deputy attorney general. 20:15 Attorney General William Barr: Well, special counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not his view, since we don’t convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose. He did not – I didn’t talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision. Hearing: Justice Department Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, April 9, 2019. 1:07:10 Rep. Charlie Crist (FL): Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the Special Council’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that? Attorney General William Barr: No, I don’t. I suspect that they probably wanted more put out. Hearing: Michael Cohen Testimony, House Oversight Committee, February 27, 2019. 4:01:34 Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): On January 17 of this year, the Wall Street Journal published a story stating that you hired John Gauger, the owner of a consulting company who works for Liberty University in Virginia, to rig at least two online polls related to Donald Trump. Did you hire him? Michael Cohen: Those were back in I believe 2015? Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): 2014. Michael Cohen: 2014. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): 2014. So you did hire him? Michael Cohen: Yes. I spoke with Mr. Gauger about manipulating these online polls. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): And did he use bots to manipulate the poll? Michael Cohen: He used algorithms and if that includes bots then the answer’s yes. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): Yes. That’s accurate. Did the president have any involvement Michael Cohen: Yes. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): In directing you to do this? Michael Cohen: Yes. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): What were the results of the poll Michael Cohen: Exactly where we wanted them to be. In the CNBC poll, we came in at number nine. And the Drudge Report, he was top of the Drudge Report as well. 4:50:20 Michael Cohen: So there was a contract that I ended up creating Mr Trump’s behalf for a Ukrainian oligarch by the name of Victor Pinchuk. And it was that Mr. Trump was asked to come into participate in what was the Ukrainian American Economic Forum. Unfortunately, he wasn’t able to go, but I was able to negotiate 15 minutes by Skype where they would have a camera, very much like a television camera, very much like that one. And they would translate Mr. Trump to the questionnaire and then he would respond back. And I negotiated a fee of $150,000 for 15 minutes. I was directed by Mr. Trump to have the contract done in the name of the Donald J. Trump foundation as opposed to Donald J. Trump or services rendered. Hearing: FBI Oversight, Senate Judicary Committee, May 3, 2017. Witnesses: James Comey: FBI Director Sound Clips: *2:27:00: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): So potentially the President of the United States could be a target of your ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign’s involvement with Russian interference in our election. Correct? FBI Director James Comey: I just worry… I don’t want to answer that because it seems to be unfair speculation. We will follow the evidence. We’ll try and find as much as we can and we’ll follow the evidence where it leads. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Jerome Corsi became a target of the Mueller Investigation. He says he did nothing illegal, never had any contacts with Russians or Wikileaks, but Mueller wanted him to perjure himself in order for them to get at the President. Coris refused and instead filed a $350 million lawsuit against the Special Counsel's Office, alleging numerous misdeeds and crimes. Let's see where it goes. However, him gambit seems to have bought him relief from prosecution and is the subject of a new book, Silent No More. Corsi has done us all a service by refusing to back down. Hopefully Roger Stone will be exonerated as well. 

Jerome Corsi became a target of the Mueller Investigation. He says he did nothing illegal, never had any contacts with Russians or Wikileaks, but Mueller wanted him to perjure himself in order for them to get at the President. Coris refused and instead filed a $350 million lawsuit against the Special Counsel's Office, alleging numerous misdeeds and crimes. Let's see where it goes. However, him gambit seems to have bought him relief from prosecution and is the subject of a new book, Silent No More. Corsi has done us all a service by refusing to back down. Hopefully Roger Stone will be exonerated as well. 

“Indicting Roger Stone” January 28, 2019 In this clip of the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet and his co-host Anne Milgram discuss Roger Stone's arrest last week and the charges he faces from the Special Counsel's Office. References made in the episode: Roger Stone’s indictment, filed by Special Counsel’s Office on 1/24/19 18 U.S. Code § 1001 Roger Stone’s Nixon tattoo The 2016 Wikileaks hack of DNC and Clinton campaign emails To listen to the full episode, become a member of CAFE Insider at CAFE.com/insider.

Today's Rapid Response episode takes a look at three breaking stories related to the White House:  (1) the recent ruling requiring Stormy Daniels to pay Trump's attorneys' fees; (2) the sentencing of Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen; and (3) most importantly, the plea deal signed by American Media, Inc. -- parent company to the National Enquirer -- to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office. We begin by revisiting the question of whether, in fact, Stormy Daniels is still a legal genius.  (Hint:  she is.)  But what does it mean that a court just ordered her to pay Trump nearly $300,000 -- and why could it have been much, much worse?  Listen and find out. After that, we check out Trump's ex-"fixer" and the former Taxi King of New York, Michael Cohen, who was just sentenced to three years in prison. Then it's time for a fascinating look into a non-prosecution agreement reached between the Special Counsel's Office and American Media, Inc. that tell us an awful lot about where Yodel Mountain is headed. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #105 on modifications to a contract.  As always, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here's the merits ruling defamation we referenced during the show; you can also check out Trump's motion for attorneys' fees, Avenatti's (rather weak) opposition brief, and the court's ruling directing Stormy to pay almost $300,000. And because it never ends, check out the mediation questionnaire filled out by Avenatti for their appeal to the 9th Circuit. You know you want to read the press release regarding Michael Cohen's sentence; after that, you can check out the sentencing memoranda filed by the SCO's office ("good cop") as well as the brief filed by the SDNY ("bad cop"). Finally, this is the AMI agreeement as well as the DOJ guidelines on prosecuting corporations. Oh, and just for fun, here's Jose Canseco's audition to be Trump's Chief of Staff.  #YesWeCanseco Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

This week on BACKROOM POLITICS... The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions fires the Deputy Director of the FBI after two internal reports state he "lacked candor under oath" as part of an internal investigation of media leaks inside the agency... was it a justified firing or a political mob hit? This as the war of words (and subpeonas) escalates between the White House and The Special Counsel's Office when Robert Mueller issues subpeonas to the Trump Organization seeking business documents and other items.  We will discuss the latest budget showdown... and what EXACTLY is the "Deep State"?  All of this and more, this week on THE BEST POLITICAL TALK SHOW YOU;VE NEVER HEARD OF...BACKROOM POLITICS!

This week on BACKROOM POLITICS... The White House listened...and they believe teachers with guns are the solution... just ask the NRA.  Teachers, however? Not so happy with this proposal...is the Administration tone deaf or just beholden to the NRA?  Can this country finally move forward on sensible gun regulations?  The Special Counsel's Office has been VERY busy over the past week... we will discuss the latest...The Dems have their day in the court of public opinion as they release their rebuttal to the Chairman Nunes House Intel Committee Memo... did we really accomplish anything with this exchange? And between the Russia investigation, the turmoil in the White House, and everything else going on within the administration... can this White House take control of the narrative?  All of this and more, this week... on Backroom Politics! 

THIS WEEK ON BACKROOM POLITICS... BREAKING NEWS.... The New York Times is reporting that the Special Counsel's Office has subpoenaed former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon.  Could this begin a new angle for the Special Counsel or is this just smoke and drama?  Also, The race is on to prevent a Government Shutdown on Friday!  With arguments regarding clean bills and immigration attachments... does DACA and The Wall become a bargaining chip or an anchor to pull the Government into closure. And... speaking of sh*tshows...  Is the White House taking a racist approach to immigration or is America just being too sensitive after the reports of the President calling Haiti and several African countries "shitholes"?  Should the electorate be upset about the comments by POTUS?  How could this affect our international credibility?  All of this and more...this week on BACKROOM POLITICS...LIVE FROM WASHINGTON, DC

THIS WEEK ON BACKROOM POLITICS... Former National Security Advisor Micheal Flynn makes a plea deal with the Special Counsel's Office and Department of Justice,,, and makes a statement about how he is cooperating with Mueller's office.  The President also sends out a tweet that could possibly incriminate him on Obstruction of Justice charges...the question is... did he do damage to himself with the Tweet and can the President be tried for Obstruction?  The GOP FINALLY gets a piece of legislation through...however... it is a Tax Bill that no one (literally NO ONE) likes... how can Congress convince the American electorate that this is good for the middle class? The Supreme Court takes up the "wedding cake case"... is a cake a form of expression or is it discrimination to deny a same-sex couple their wedding dessert... we will discuss... all of this and MUCH MORE...this week on the BEST POLITICAL TALK SHOW YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF.... BACKROOM POLITICS...