Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good morning from South Dakota. Michael. I understand your explanation
of the pardons, but I do have one question in
the Hunter Biden pardon about the dates that he gave
him a pardon for. Some of the dates were in
the future. Does this mean that presidents can pardon people
for future crimes. Oh, by the way, dairy queen was
(00:20):
good the other day. Everyone have a great day.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
About day Queen.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
I won't say that missus Redbeard didn't finish her burger, but.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
The cheese curds were.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
We did get some cheese curds, so those were absolutely delicious.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Yeah, did you get one over your neighborhood somewhere or what?
Speaker 3 (00:41):
You have to find the specific DK chill and grill
because all of them do the broders and stuff.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
So we had to.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
We drove around from and found one that's actually not
too far from us here at the station.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Funny because last night, when when I got home, I'm
you know, I'm still batching it, still gone, and I
was trying to decide, and I kind of wanted to
a burger. But you know, when you're when you're trying,
you you don't tend to eat very well. True, So
I instead, I had some really good.
Speaker 5 (01:15):
Italian food last night.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
Might even had a glass or do a wine last night,
just to get ready to come back in here and
see you good. Actually, just get ready to come back
in the building. I thought, you know, I might as
well start drinking now, get ready for the rest of
the week, even though it's a short week. I want
to go back to the pardon, just briefly, because some
of the text messages in that talk back, as I recall, well,
(01:45):
I don't recall the Hunter Biden pardon, but I thought
it was for a set period of time. But I
didn't think it went into the future. I thought it
went up to the time of the pardon. I don't
(02:05):
think you can you can, you can do it. Open
it like if Donald Trump wanted to issue a pardon
to me or Dragon or to you, even though none
of the three of us have committed any federal crimes. Remember,
the power of the pardon for the presidency is for
(02:26):
crimes against the United States, not for crimes against the
state of Colorado, but crimes against the United States. And
if Trump wanted to issue a pardon that says anything
that I've done from you know, take well, you know
for life. I suppose from the date of birth through
(02:50):
today at seven o nine to fifty one am, he
could do that. I would I would make an argument,
and I don't think the courts would interpret it. I
don't think the courts would take the case. But I
can make an argument that if the president wanted to
pardon anyone for anything at any time forever, he could
(03:12):
do that, but it has to be for crimes committed,
so I would have had to have So if if
I get pardoned for the rest of my life for
all federal crimes, that's only for crimes that I've committed
as of the day of the pardon, Because you can't
(03:33):
pardon someone for something they have not done in the future.
For example, if if I murder a let's take ice agents,
you know, there's all the coin. You know, if I
murder an ice agent that's going to be charged under
a federal crime, well you can't pardon me for that
because I haven't done that yet. So I don't think
(03:54):
you do that in the future. But the problem I
have even saying that is that's not what the Constitution says.
The power of the pardon is the president's. For example,
four four six seven, Rice Michael, for the purpose of
going forward in Congress, make some law about what the
autopen can be used on. No, not if you want
(04:20):
you if you wanted to limit I'm not sure you
could say that the president must sign everything he does
by his own signatures.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
You don't think you could even just get rid of
the auto pen itself.
Speaker 4 (04:34):
I don't think you can get rid of the autopen
because the president. And in fact, there's I didn't I
did this research a long time ago. I haven't done
it currently. But I forget when the it was Obama
that well, and read into that whatever you want to
Obama that authorized the use of the auto pen to
(04:57):
sign a piece of legislation while he was over Congress
can't Congress can't do anything about that. Of course, aren't
going to get in the middle of that, because that's
a plenary power that belongs to the president, and they've
already addressed that in the immunity case. Those powers which
(05:19):
are granted to the president in his official capacity are
those powers, and we are saying those are his powers
and we can't do anything about it. Let's see sixteen
forty one. Since since Biden pardon chaining others for crimes
they might be charged in the future. Can any new
(05:39):
president part in his entire administration, his family, and anybody
else for future open ended activities. I don't think so,
because it is remember for offenses against the United States,
so that it would be at the time of the pardon.
So any thing from the time of the pardon up
(06:02):
to that point, because there's nothing about let's go.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
Back to let me pull up my notes from where
it was I on that earlier. Here it is.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
He shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for
offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
That's Article two the Presidency. So if you're going to
grant reprieves and pardons for offenses, it has to be front.
(06:38):
I shouldn't say it has to be. My interpretation would
be that plenary power is boom. I sign it today.
Speaker 5 (06:47):
I can't.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
I can't excuse you for something you're going to do
in the future. I can only do I can only
pardon you for something you've done up to that day,
Which is why Biden pardoned on the final day, ten
minutes before he heads up to be the former president,
he pardons his entire family for anything that they might
(07:10):
have done up to that point. So from the time
he signs the pardon, that's when it's anything before that,
he show a power to grant reprieve and pardons for
offenses against the United States. Doesn't that mean that's read
into what you will? I think I think that is it.
(07:34):
I guess the bottom line that's that's driving me the
craziest about this is everybody wants to see those pardons overturned,
and the Supreme Court's not going to touch that, and
Congress can't do anything about it. And let's not get
so upset about the auto pin. If if you knew
(07:57):
how many things the president has to sign on a
daily basis, you would understand the autopin. And I'm not
talking about memos. I'm talking about every piece of paper
that carries the signature of the president, every photograph. I mean,
(08:20):
you're going to outlaw the autopen entirely, No, I think
that's impractical in today's society, as complex as it is.
I think the autopen is absolutely a viable option for
a president to sign policy memos, to sign regulations, to
sign photographs, to sign correspondence, to even sign legislation. After all,
(08:44):
what is the autopin but just the replication of his
actual signature. Remember, he has to sign a piece of
paper in order for the autopen to replicate that signature. Now,
insofar as the staff misusing it, could they have committed
a crime? They may have if they did something that
(09:09):
is outside their purview, outside their authority, that might cross
over into criminality. But that's on a fact by that's
that's on a case by case basis, based upon the
facts of every individual case. Bottom line is this, we
(09:31):
we have, I think a legitimate inquiry into the competency
of the former president. How long did they know it,
did they cover it up? What were they doing? But
that's out of almost prurient interest. It's it's not anything
(09:53):
that I'm asking Congress to investigate because I want them
to take some action. I just want to know, oh,
were we governed by and were we governed by doctor
Jill Biden and the staff as everybody's claiming in these
books that are out for you know, most, if not all,
of his entire four years. I'd like to know that.
(10:17):
But you can't go rewind the past four years. If
Congress had any doubt about the competency of Joe Biden
anytime during that period of time. There were two remedies available,
the twenty fifth Amendment. Now let's think about the twenty
fifth Amendment for a moment. Again, these are political remedies,
(10:43):
not legal remedies, because there is no legal remedy for
a court to impose on an incompetent president. The founding
father said, those are political issues that we will have
a check in balance, and that is the MP And
then we adopted the twenty fifth Amendment, which can remove
(11:04):
a president permanently or temporarily, depending upon the circumstances. But
because Kamala and the cabinet would not take action, then
how would you get them to take action. Well, you
couldn't get you could not get an injunction. You couldn't
get a mandamus order from a court that says you
must go do this. But politically, the Democrats Republicans could
(11:30):
have put pressure in the cabinet to try to do it.
They could have held hearings, but they chose not to.
Nobody chose to do anything. So I'm just curious about
what was really taking place. Solely for historical purposes and
in the future, if you know, I don't think. Oh
it is on Drudge today, alarming bruise on Trump hand,
(11:54):
the swollen ankles, and the story that I read last night.
I forget it's maybe it's in it's some one of
the British papers and maybe the Daily Mail or something.
I don't even let's see. Oh it's the Mirror and
Ceasepan just a video. Trump's got some bruises on his hand. Well,
that's not unusual for old people to have bruises or
(12:16):
you know, age spots, dark spots, liver spots, whatever you
want to call them, on your body. He does appear
to have very swollen ankles that might indicate some congestive
heart failure.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
So he's just a fat guy, yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
Or it could be it could be any number of things.
He never seems to be out of breath like you
would be with congestive heart failure, So who knows what
it is? Do you want to investigate that? Well, they
could investigate it if they wanted to. Could they impeach
him because he's got swollen ankles?
Speaker 5 (12:46):
Questionable? I mean they could try.
Speaker 4 (12:48):
Because it's all political, it's not a legal Yes, are
there legal procedures that are involved in impeachment, sure, but
it is not a legal process. It is not a
judicial process.
Speaker 5 (13:00):
Anyway.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
This all started because while I was traveling, I just
heard so much on the news about these pardons, and
I'm like, this is much ado about nothing, and everyone's
trying to convince you that somehow there's a legal remedy
to this, and there is not a legal remedy to it.
There's a political remedy, and that political remedy is just
(13:21):
investigate and tell us what happened. And in so far
as a political remedy that might have any true ramifications,
that ship sailed because Biden checks, Yeah, nope, he's he's
not president anymore. So you can't impeach him and you
can't invoke the twenty fifth Amendment. So all we can
do is learn from it. Now this segment, which Wow
(13:46):
can't leave on, I'm done with pardons. This segment is
not about the details of the Trump Russia Russia Russia hoax,
nor is it my effort to give you an analysis
of what an investigation of either Brennan or Comy might
uncover nine years after they tried to prevent Donald Trump
(14:08):
from winning the presidency against Hillary Clinton. But there have
been some events over the past few days, as well
as some news reports of activity within the Department of
Justice that all support the conclusion that criminal prosecutors have
indeed opened a criminal investigation into the prior FBI criminal
investigation Crossfire Hurricane, so that investigation is now subject to
(14:34):
another investigation. First, the CIA issued a public report it's
called you can find it online, trade Craft Review of
the twenty sixteen Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Election Interference.
That report documented these irregularities in the preparation of the
(14:56):
January twenty seventeen. Similarly, these are called Intelligence Community Assessments
the ICAS, so i'm will refer to them as the
ICAS now. The one done back in twenty seventeen, yes,
eight years ago now, was ostensibly an analysis of Russia's
(15:20):
efforts to influence the outcome of the twenty sixteen election.
That was all based on this hypothesis that Putin was
trying to help Trump win. Remember all of that. I
know it seemed like centuries ago, and it does seem
like centuries ago. Both John Bremen and James Comey had
(15:41):
direct involvement with shaping the content of that ICA, and
both insisted that different aspects of information found in the
Steel dossier needed to be included in that assessment.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
At the time that.
Speaker 4 (15:59):
They did, they both had knowledge, they both had information
that the source, the providence, if you will, of that
information was not only suspect, but the information was actually false,
and that if they'd actually been put together as part
(16:20):
of a campaign dirty trick, all part funded and done
by the Clinton campaign back in the spring in the
summer of twenty sixteen, now campaign operatives of which I
think you could actually describe John Brennan as an unofficial
member of the Clinton campaign. They were working together to
(16:43):
get individuals in the federal intelligence and law enforcement communities
to treat the information as if it was actual, real,
raw intelligence that would require official scrutiny to confirm Actorpond.
In other words, they were arguing to steal dossier even
(17:05):
though we now know it was a campaign dirty trick
dreamed up and paid for by the Clinton campaign. They
were arguing, if that was actually raw intelligence that we
got from signal intelligence and human intelligence we got from
operatives around the world, No, you did, and you were
lying a.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
Bunch of crap that led to what.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
Them, including that led to the combined Intel and the
Criminal Investigation, Crossfire, Hurricane.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
The next issue.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Please thank you and have a good day.
Speaker 5 (17:45):
I missed the first part of that.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
What was that next issue? Please?
Speaker 5 (17:48):
Next issue.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
So this past week there were a lot of news
reports that both the that the current director of the CIA,
Jim Radcliffe, had sent a criminal referral of both Brennan
and Comy to the FBI, and that was based on
allegations that their testimony before Congress about the ICA the
(18:10):
Intelligence Community assessment.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
Was probably false.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
And so now the Department of Justice and the FBI
have opened criminal investigations of both of them. Now, places
that I read in this particular space and I very
much respect, are cautioning against going down this path because
(18:36):
it smacks of retribution, and in their opinion, it continues
this cycle of politicizing the Department of Justice because they
claim that, well, now we're pursuing political enemies. Well, I'm
not going to contest that one or both might be true.
And I do respect the opinions of those who believe that,
(18:59):
Billy way to break this cycle of politicizing the Department
of Justice is to bring it into this.
Speaker 5 (19:04):
Practice but back.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
But there is a salutary effect that might outweigh these
admittedly unfortunate aspects of turning a spotlight on what Brendan
Comby and others did in the name of the United States.
You know, a thought that just bounced into my brain
was here I am saying that, you know what, there's
(19:31):
a part of me that says, yes, let's break this cycle.
Let's just keep moving forward. At the same time that
I'm saying the same thing about the pardons and let's
move forward. And many of you are say, all, but
I want to.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Go back and look at the partner.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
I'm going to go back and look at the pardon,
and now here I am also saying, let's go back
and look at it and see if they committed any crimes. Well,
there's a distinction here. These are actual crimes. The pardon
is a political issue, not a criminal issue. The Attorney
General of the United States, she really does need to
(20:07):
provide the country with some sort of account of what
happened through the use of powers that were given by
we the people to those involved, and what their motives were.
We need to come clean about this, and in large measure,
the answers to the questions about what Brennan and Comy did,
the answers are really not known. I know many of
(20:31):
us think we know what they did, and I know
many of us, in fact, I think most of us
believe we know what they did. But those answers have
never been produced as part of any official finding, any
record by the Department of Justice about misconduct of their
own workforce. So it does raise the issue of the
(20:54):
propriety of using the unique evidence gathering tools that are
used for criminal investigations bye DOJ for just such an exercise.
But a senior cabinet official has submitted a referral for
criminal investigation of previous senior government officials, including his predecessor,
(21:18):
for untruthful testimony before Congress about their actions. While in
those senior positions, there are many out there who are
sick and tired, including me. You know, I took any
time that I had to testify before Congress, I took
it extreme, extremely seriously. And I'm even talking about pre
(21:41):
Katrina because during an post Katrina, there were many times
that I was actually in a deposition, not just a
congressional hearing, but a deposition. In other words, I was
sitting there with members of Congress, but they weren't asking
me questions. The lawyers were asking me questions. So I
thought about every answer I gave because I didn't want
(22:06):
to get caught in that. Well, yesterday you told us
you thought it happened at eleven o'clock in the morning,
and today you're telling us it happened at nine o'clock
in the morning. Now that may seem trivial, but in
a time crunch, time compact period of time, two hours
might make a difference between what you actually knew and
you thought you knew. But also, even in a congressional hearing,
(22:30):
I didn't want some stupid reporters saying, oh, you know what, well,
you know, Secretary Brown said this, and we found out
that there was a memo that he had written, you know,
you know, six weeks earlier or six months earlier, that
said just the opposite. So I always took it very seriously.
I never wanted to be you know, even allegations of perjury.
(22:52):
And now for those of us who think that people
have perjured themselves in front of Congress and have not
been held accountable, I give you, oh, Peter Navarro, refuse
to you know, comply with subpoena. Steve Bannon, same thing
in essence equal to perjuring yourselves before Congress. They were
(23:12):
held in contempt of Congress for different matters, but nonetheless
they were held in contempt of Congress and they went
to jail. So why should other you know, people like
Comy and Brennan not be held at the same standard.
But once there are no limits on the scope of
(23:34):
an investigation, it goes. And any investigation always should go
wherever the information developed leads it to go. Maybe it
leads nowhere, but maybe it does. But the problem is
we don't know unless we actually conduct an investigation. And
(23:55):
I've thought about this because I keep questioning about the
statute limitations. Isn't the prosecution of federal crimes limited to
a period of five years after the crime was committed?
As a general proposition, that is true. But whenever an
investigation involves two or more participants, the possible existence of
(24:15):
a conspiracy exists. Was a conspiracy did two or more
individuals agree with each other and others to commit one
or more crimes? And did any member of the conspiratorial
agreement commit an overt act in furtherance of the criminal objectives? Well,
(24:40):
you can't determine if there was a conspiracy unless you
examine and reinvestigate the really discrete conduct of every person
involved in the potential conspiracy and didn't connect any dots.
If the investigation allows you to connect the dots between
those individuals, discussions, communications, acting in concert with all of
(25:06):
those things bear on the state of mind and the
purpose behind connecting the dots. And where do you find
those Do you find those from interviews, a review of
all the documentary data, the electronic data, and when you
do an investigation, you pull all of that information together
with I hope a high level of confidence that you
have everything you need on all sides of the subject.
(25:31):
Why because the conspiracy, by definition, takes place over time
and space. While the first overt act is the marker
showing that a criminals conspiracy has been initiated or formed
or started, the last overt act in furtherance of that
conspiracy marks the end of the conspiracy. The statute limitation
(25:57):
starts over again every single time there is a new
overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. So let's let
me give you an example. If there was a conspiracy
between four people to rob banks, every bank robbery would
(26:18):
set the statue limitations back to day one, with a
new five year period beginning on prosecuting the conspiracy. The
individual bank robberies, the actual crimes would all have statue
limitations that run from the day each robbery is committed,
(26:38):
but the statute on conspiracy to commit bank robberies would
not start until the last overt act. So if the
last overt act was two years ago, you still have
three years running on the statue limitations. And there are
(27:00):
circumstances where a conspiracy can persist beyond the criminal objectives
that were the purpose of the original conspiracy. Overt Acts
taken to conceal the existence of the conspiracy or actual
crimes can extend the timeline of the conspiracy. So when
(27:22):
you undertake a general effort to avoid detection, well that's
not normally enough. When you start doing things like old
destroying evidence, or maybe you're intimidating a witness that's necessary
to the conspiracy, those are efforts to defeat the likelihood
that the crimes will ever be uncovered. Now, that's a
(27:45):
narrow subcategory of concealment actions, and they're not all going
to fall into the concealing conspiracy. Criminal statute, but some
of them may. Whether any particular overt act that's intended
to conceal the existence of a conspiracy fits within that
(28:06):
narrow category that would cause the statue limitations period to reset,
but you can't find that out unless you do a
real investigation that uncovers those overt acts after the objectives
of the conspiracy are achieved and completed. So we can
(28:26):
just dismiss the idea that such acts were taken before
you even start to look for them. So there's this question,
could Brennan and Comey's false statements be those kinds of
acts that would continue the statue limitations for the conspiracy? Well,
(28:48):
you don't know until you fully investigate the underlying conspiracy itself,
and you can't understand understand the underlying conspiracy, And I
would to be objective if there was a conspiracy without
conducting investigation. So with all of that as the as
(29:09):
the background, what do we accomplish if there is an
investigation and that investigation reveals a criminal conspiracy as well
as exposing conspirators, but there are no overt acts that
would extend the statue limitations so that you could actually
prosecute them. What would happen. Well, we already have policy
(29:34):
on that, and I'll tell you what it is.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Or Michael, hope you're having a great day.
Speaker 5 (29:41):
I just wanted to say.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
I absolutely love the way you argue with yourself and then.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Get all exasperated when you can't get the person that
you're arguing with to understand your point. It's freaking hilarious.
Well let me make a day.
Speaker 4 (30:01):
But let me tell you why I do that, because
I know induitively that many of you out there are
making that same argument. And then I find myself arguing
with and you're right, I find myself arguing with myself.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
All the time, argues with Michael.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Yes, because I know, because this is this is the
lawyerr brain, I'm sitting here and I just made, you know,
a case about pardons, and it's like, get over it.
And now I'm making a case here for an investigation
where the statue limitations may have run. But my counter
argument is, well, maybe it hasn't, but we won't know
(30:39):
until we actually do the investigation. But there's another reason,
which I think is fully in uh conformity or fully
in in alignment with my argument about the pardons, and
that is this the outcome of this investigation could take
(31:01):
the form of indictment that with stands a legal challenge
based on the statute limitations. It could actually result in
indictment of these two yahoos that should be indicted, and
it could stand a legal challenge.
Speaker 5 (31:14):
But let me argue with myself, maybe it doesn't.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
Maybe the investigation which I'm arguing for, results in, Oh,
we're going to indict these guys and they file a
motion to dismiss based on the statue limitations as told,
and you can't prosecute us. And the court dismisses the
criminal charges with prejudice and you can't prosecute them. Again,
I would still argue for the investigation for this reason.
(31:45):
A public report by the Attorney General into the conduct
of members of the Department of Justice and the CIA
acting within the course and the scope of their official
jobs is actually justified based upon the Policy Manual the
Department of Justice, which says the public has a right
to know. In fact, it says, let me I made
(32:08):
a note here somewhere. It's Policy interest number four in
the Manual the Department of Justice. The right of the
public to have access to information about the Department of Justice.
In other words, it doesn't operate in a shroud of secrecy.
So just investigating prior wrongdoing or allegations of prior wrongdoing
(32:35):
is even if it doesn't result in indictments. Is political
accountability and being subject to accountability by the public in
whose name the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the
CIA operate is a price that you and I agree
to pay in advance when you exercise the authority that
(32:58):
comes with a position inside the executive branch the DOJ
in this case, the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA.
Do you want accountability, then let's have an investigation, even
if it doesn't result in an indictment or the statue
limitation says you can't indict, at least we'll know they
(33:19):
really were crooks.
Good morning from South Dakota. Michael. I understand your explanation
of the pardons, but I do have one question in
the Hunter Biden pardon about the dates that he gave
him a pardon for. Some of the dates were in
the future. Does this mean that presidents can pardon people
for future crimes. Oh, by the way, dairy queen was
(00:20):
good the other day. Everyone have a great day.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
About day Queen.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
I won't say that missus Redbeard didn't finish her burger, but.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
The cheese curds were.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
We did get some cheese curds, so those were absolutely delicious.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Yeah, did you get one over your neighborhood somewhere or what?
Speaker 3 (00:41):
You have to find the specific DK chill and grill
because all of them do the broders and stuff.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
So we had to.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
We drove around from and found one that's actually not
too far from us here at the station.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Funny because last night, when when I got home, I'm
you know, I'm still batching it, still gone, and I
was trying to decide, and I kind of wanted to
a burger. But you know, when you're when you're trying,
you you don't tend to eat very well. True, So
I instead, I had some really good.
Speaker 5 (01:15):
Italian food last night.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
Might even had a glass or do a wine last night,
just to get ready to come back in here and
see you good. Actually, just get ready to come back
in the building. I thought, you know, I might as
well start drinking now, get ready for the rest of
the week, even though it's a short week. I want
to go back to the pardon, just briefly, because some
of the text messages in that talk back, as I recall, well,
(01:45):
I don't recall the Hunter Biden pardon, but I thought
it was for a set period of time. But I
didn't think it went into the future. I thought it
went up to the time of the pardon. I don't
(02:05):
think you can you can, you can do it. Open
it like if Donald Trump wanted to issue a pardon
to me or Dragon or to you, even though none
of the three of us have committed any federal crimes. Remember,
the power of the pardon for the presidency is for
(02:26):
crimes against the United States, not for crimes against the
state of Colorado, but crimes against the United States. And
if Trump wanted to issue a pardon that says anything
that I've done from you know, take well, you know
for life. I suppose from the date of birth through
(02:50):
today at seven o nine to fifty one am, he
could do that. I would I would make an argument,
and I don't think the courts would interpret it. I
don't think the courts would take the case. But I
can make an argument that if the president wanted to
pardon anyone for anything at any time forever, he could
(03:12):
do that, but it has to be for crimes committed,
so I would have had to have So if if
I get pardoned for the rest of my life for
all federal crimes, that's only for crimes that I've committed
as of the day of the pardon, Because you can't
(03:33):
pardon someone for something they have not done in the future.
For example, if if I murder a let's take ice agents,
you know, there's all the coin. You know, if I
murder an ice agent that's going to be charged under
a federal crime, well you can't pardon me for that
because I haven't done that yet. So I don't think
(03:54):
you do that in the future. But the problem I
have even saying that is that's not what the Constitution says.
The power of the pardon is the president's. For example,
four four six seven, Rice Michael, for the purpose of
going forward in Congress, make some law about what the
autopen can be used on. No, not if you want
(04:20):
you if you wanted to limit I'm not sure you
could say that the president must sign everything he does
by his own signatures.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
You don't think you could even just get rid of
the auto pen itself.
Speaker 4 (04:34):
I don't think you can get rid of the autopen
because the president. And in fact, there's I didn't I
did this research a long time ago. I haven't done
it currently. But I forget when the it was Obama
that well, and read into that whatever you want to
Obama that authorized the use of the auto pen to
(04:57):
sign a piece of legislation while he was over Congress
can't Congress can't do anything about that. Of course, aren't
going to get in the middle of that, because that's
a plenary power that belongs to the president, and they've
already addressed that in the immunity case. Those powers which
(05:19):
are granted to the president in his official capacity are
those powers, and we are saying those are his powers
and we can't do anything about it. Let's see sixteen
forty one. Since since Biden pardon chaining others for crimes
they might be charged in the future. Can any new
(05:39):
president part in his entire administration, his family, and anybody
else for future open ended activities. I don't think so,
because it is remember for offenses against the United States,
so that it would be at the time of the pardon.
So any thing from the time of the pardon up
(06:02):
to that point, because there's nothing about let's go.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
Back to let me pull up my notes from where
it was I on that earlier. Here it is.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
He shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for
offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
That's Article two the Presidency. So if you're going to
grant reprieves and pardons for offenses, it has to be front.
(06:38):
I shouldn't say it has to be. My interpretation would
be that plenary power is boom. I sign it today.
Speaker 5 (06:47):
I can't.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
I can't excuse you for something you're going to do
in the future. I can only do I can only
pardon you for something you've done up to that day,
Which is why Biden pardoned on the final day, ten
minutes before he heads up to be the former president,
he pardons his entire family for anything that they might
(07:10):
have done up to that point. So from the time
he signs the pardon, that's when it's anything before that,
he show a power to grant reprieve and pardons for
offenses against the United States. Doesn't that mean that's read
into what you will? I think I think that is it.
(07:34):
I guess the bottom line that's that's driving me the
craziest about this is everybody wants to see those pardons overturned,
and the Supreme Court's not going to touch that, and
Congress can't do anything about it. And let's not get
so upset about the auto pin. If if you knew
(07:57):
how many things the president has to sign on a
daily basis, you would understand the autopin. And I'm not
talking about memos. I'm talking about every piece of paper
that carries the signature of the president, every photograph. I mean,
(08:20):
you're going to outlaw the autopen entirely, No, I think
that's impractical in today's society, as complex as it is.
I think the autopen is absolutely a viable option for
a president to sign policy memos, to sign regulations, to
sign photographs, to sign correspondence, to even sign legislation. After all,
(08:44):
what is the autopin but just the replication of his
actual signature. Remember, he has to sign a piece of
paper in order for the autopen to replicate that signature. Now,
insofar as the staff misusing it, could they have committed
a crime? They may have if they did something that
(09:09):
is outside their purview, outside their authority, that might cross
over into criminality. But that's on a fact by that's
that's on a case by case basis, based upon the
facts of every individual case. Bottom line is this, we
(09:31):
we have, I think a legitimate inquiry into the competency
of the former president. How long did they know it,
did they cover it up? What were they doing? But
that's out of almost prurient interest. It's it's not anything
(09:53):
that I'm asking Congress to investigate because I want them
to take some action. I just want to know, oh,
were we governed by and were we governed by doctor
Jill Biden and the staff as everybody's claiming in these
books that are out for you know, most, if not all,
of his entire four years. I'd like to know that.
(10:17):
But you can't go rewind the past four years. If
Congress had any doubt about the competency of Joe Biden
anytime during that period of time. There were two remedies available,
the twenty fifth Amendment. Now let's think about the twenty
fifth Amendment for a moment. Again, these are political remedies,
(10:43):
not legal remedies, because there is no legal remedy for
a court to impose on an incompetent president. The founding
father said, those are political issues that we will have
a check in balance, and that is the MP And
then we adopted the twenty fifth Amendment, which can remove
(11:04):
a president permanently or temporarily, depending upon the circumstances. But
because Kamala and the cabinet would not take action, then
how would you get them to take action. Well, you
couldn't get you could not get an injunction. You couldn't
get a mandamus order from a court that says you
must go do this. But politically, the Democrats Republicans could
(11:30):
have put pressure in the cabinet to try to do it.
They could have held hearings, but they chose not to.
Nobody chose to do anything. So I'm just curious about
what was really taking place. Solely for historical purposes and
in the future, if you know, I don't think. Oh
it is on Drudge today, alarming bruise on Trump hand,
(11:54):
the swollen ankles, and the story that I read last night.
I forget it's maybe it's in it's some one of
the British papers and maybe the Daily Mail or something.
I don't even let's see. Oh it's the Mirror and
Ceasepan just a video. Trump's got some bruises on his hand. Well,
that's not unusual for old people to have bruises or
(12:16):
you know, age spots, dark spots, liver spots, whatever you
want to call them, on your body. He does appear
to have very swollen ankles that might indicate some congestive
heart failure.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
So he's just a fat guy, yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
Or it could be it could be any number of things.
He never seems to be out of breath like you
would be with congestive heart failure, So who knows what
it is? Do you want to investigate that? Well, they
could investigate it if they wanted to. Could they impeach
him because he's got swollen ankles?
Speaker 5 (12:46):
Questionable? I mean they could try.
Speaker 4 (12:48):
Because it's all political, it's not a legal Yes, are
there legal procedures that are involved in impeachment, sure, but
it is not a legal process. It is not a
judicial process.
Speaker 5 (13:00):
Anyway.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
This all started because while I was traveling, I just
heard so much on the news about these pardons, and
I'm like, this is much ado about nothing, and everyone's
trying to convince you that somehow there's a legal remedy
to this, and there is not a legal remedy to it.
There's a political remedy, and that political remedy is just
(13:21):
investigate and tell us what happened. And in so far
as a political remedy that might have any true ramifications,
that ship sailed because Biden checks, Yeah, nope, he's he's
not president anymore. So you can't impeach him and you
can't invoke the twenty fifth Amendment. So all we can
do is learn from it. Now this segment, which Wow
(13:46):
can't leave on, I'm done with pardons. This segment is
not about the details of the Trump Russia Russia Russia hoax,
nor is it my effort to give you an analysis
of what an investigation of either Brennan or Comy might
uncover nine years after they tried to prevent Donald Trump
(14:08):
from winning the presidency against Hillary Clinton. But there have
been some events over the past few days, as well
as some news reports of activity within the Department of
Justice that all support the conclusion that criminal prosecutors have
indeed opened a criminal investigation into the prior FBI criminal
investigation Crossfire Hurricane, so that investigation is now subject to
(14:34):
another investigation. First, the CIA issued a public report it's
called you can find it online, trade Craft Review of
the twenty sixteen Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Election Interference.
That report documented these irregularities in the preparation of the
(14:56):
January twenty seventeen. Similarly, these are called Intelligence Community Assessments
the ICAS, so i'm will refer to them as the
ICAS now. The one done back in twenty seventeen, yes,
eight years ago now, was ostensibly an analysis of Russia's
(15:20):
efforts to influence the outcome of the twenty sixteen election.
That was all based on this hypothesis that Putin was
trying to help Trump win. Remember all of that. I
know it seemed like centuries ago, and it does seem
like centuries ago. Both John Bremen and James Comey had
(15:41):
direct involvement with shaping the content of that ICA, and
both insisted that different aspects of information found in the
Steel dossier needed to be included in that assessment.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
At the time that.
Speaker 4 (15:59):
They did, they both had knowledge, they both had information
that the source, the providence, if you will, of that
information was not only suspect, but the information was actually false,
and that if they'd actually been put together as part
(16:20):
of a campaign dirty trick, all part funded and done
by the Clinton campaign back in the spring in the
summer of twenty sixteen, now campaign operatives of which I
think you could actually describe John Brennan as an unofficial
member of the Clinton campaign. They were working together to
(16:43):
get individuals in the federal intelligence and law enforcement communities
to treat the information as if it was actual, real,
raw intelligence that would require official scrutiny to confirm Actorpond.
In other words, they were arguing to steal dossier even
(17:05):
though we now know it was a campaign dirty trick
dreamed up and paid for by the Clinton campaign. They
were arguing, if that was actually raw intelligence that we
got from signal intelligence and human intelligence we got from
operatives around the world, No, you did, and you were
lying a.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
Bunch of crap that led to what.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
Them, including that led to the combined Intel and the
Criminal Investigation, Crossfire, Hurricane.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
The next issue.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Please thank you and have a good day.
Speaker 5 (17:45):
I missed the first part of that.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
What was that next issue? Please?
Speaker 5 (17:48):
Next issue.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
So this past week there were a lot of news
reports that both the that the current director of the CIA,
Jim Radcliffe, had sent a criminal referral of both Brennan
and Comy to the FBI, and that was based on
allegations that their testimony before Congress about the ICA the
(18:10):
Intelligence Community assessment.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
Was probably false.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
And so now the Department of Justice and the FBI
have opened criminal investigations of both of them. Now, places
that I read in this particular space and I very
much respect, are cautioning against going down this path because
(18:36):
it smacks of retribution, and in their opinion, it continues
this cycle of politicizing the Department of Justice because they
claim that, well, now we're pursuing political enemies. Well, I'm
not going to contest that one or both might be true.
And I do respect the opinions of those who believe that,
(18:59):
Billy way to break this cycle of politicizing the Department
of Justice is to bring it into this.
Speaker 5 (19:04):
Practice but back.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
But there is a salutary effect that might outweigh these
admittedly unfortunate aspects of turning a spotlight on what Brendan
Comby and others did in the name of the United States.
You know, a thought that just bounced into my brain
was here I am saying that, you know what, there's
(19:31):
a part of me that says, yes, let's break this cycle.
Let's just keep moving forward. At the same time that
I'm saying the same thing about the pardons and let's
move forward. And many of you are say, all, but
I want to.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Go back and look at the partner.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
I'm going to go back and look at the pardon,
and now here I am also saying, let's go back
and look at it and see if they committed any crimes. Well,
there's a distinction here. These are actual crimes. The pardon
is a political issue, not a criminal issue. The Attorney
General of the United States, she really does need to
(20:07):
provide the country with some sort of account of what
happened through the use of powers that were given by
we the people to those involved, and what their motives were.
We need to come clean about this, and in large measure,
the answers to the questions about what Brennan and Comy did,
the answers are really not known. I know many of
(20:31):
us think we know what they did, and I know
many of us, in fact, I think most of us
believe we know what they did. But those answers have
never been produced as part of any official finding, any
record by the Department of Justice about misconduct of their
own workforce. So it does raise the issue of the
(20:54):
propriety of using the unique evidence gathering tools that are
used for criminal investigations bye DOJ for just such an exercise.
But a senior cabinet official has submitted a referral for
criminal investigation of previous senior government officials, including his predecessor,
(21:18):
for untruthful testimony before Congress about their actions. While in
those senior positions, there are many out there who are
sick and tired, including me. You know, I took any
time that I had to testify before Congress, I took
it extreme, extremely seriously. And I'm even talking about pre
(21:41):
Katrina because during an post Katrina, there were many times
that I was actually in a deposition, not just a
congressional hearing, but a deposition. In other words, I was
sitting there with members of Congress, but they weren't asking
me questions. The lawyers were asking me questions. So I
thought about every answer I gave because I didn't want
(22:06):
to get caught in that. Well, yesterday you told us
you thought it happened at eleven o'clock in the morning,
and today you're telling us it happened at nine o'clock
in the morning. Now that may seem trivial, but in
a time crunch, time compact period of time, two hours
might make a difference between what you actually knew and
you thought you knew. But also, even in a congressional hearing,
(22:30):
I didn't want some stupid reporters saying, oh, you know what, well,
you know, Secretary Brown said this, and we found out
that there was a memo that he had written, you know,
you know, six weeks earlier or six months earlier, that
said just the opposite. So I always took it very seriously.
I never wanted to be you know, even allegations of perjury.
(22:52):
And now for those of us who think that people
have perjured themselves in front of Congress and have not
been held accountable, I give you, oh, Peter Navarro, refuse
to you know, comply with subpoena. Steve Bannon, same thing
in essence equal to perjuring yourselves before Congress. They were
(23:12):
held in contempt of Congress for different matters, but nonetheless
they were held in contempt of Congress and they went
to jail. So why should other you know, people like
Comy and Brennan not be held at the same standard.
But once there are no limits on the scope of
(23:34):
an investigation, it goes. And any investigation always should go
wherever the information developed leads it to go. Maybe it
leads nowhere, but maybe it does. But the problem is
we don't know unless we actually conduct an investigation. And
(23:55):
I've thought about this because I keep questioning about the
statute limitations. Isn't the prosecution of federal crimes limited to
a period of five years after the crime was committed?
As a general proposition, that is true. But whenever an
investigation involves two or more participants, the possible existence of
(24:15):
a conspiracy exists. Was a conspiracy did two or more
individuals agree with each other and others to commit one
or more crimes? And did any member of the conspiratorial
agreement commit an overt act in furtherance of the criminal objectives? Well,
(24:40):
you can't determine if there was a conspiracy unless you
examine and reinvestigate the really discrete conduct of every person
involved in the potential conspiracy and didn't connect any dots.
If the investigation allows you to connect the dots between
those individuals, discussions, communications, acting in concert with all of
(25:06):
those things bear on the state of mind and the
purpose behind connecting the dots. And where do you find
those Do you find those from interviews, a review of
all the documentary data, the electronic data, and when you
do an investigation, you pull all of that information together
with I hope a high level of confidence that you
have everything you need on all sides of the subject.
(25:31):
Why because the conspiracy, by definition, takes place over time
and space. While the first overt act is the marker
showing that a criminals conspiracy has been initiated or formed
or started, the last overt act in furtherance of that
conspiracy marks the end of the conspiracy. The statute limitation
(25:57):
starts over again every single time there is a new
overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. So let's let
me give you an example. If there was a conspiracy
between four people to rob banks, every bank robbery would
(26:18):
set the statue limitations back to day one, with a
new five year period beginning on prosecuting the conspiracy. The
individual bank robberies, the actual crimes would all have statue
limitations that run from the day each robbery is committed,
(26:38):
but the statute on conspiracy to commit bank robberies would
not start until the last overt act. So if the
last overt act was two years ago, you still have
three years running on the statue limitations. And there are
(27:00):
circumstances where a conspiracy can persist beyond the criminal objectives
that were the purpose of the original conspiracy. Overt Acts
taken to conceal the existence of the conspiracy or actual
crimes can extend the timeline of the conspiracy. So when
(27:22):
you undertake a general effort to avoid detection, well that's
not normally enough. When you start doing things like old
destroying evidence, or maybe you're intimidating a witness that's necessary
to the conspiracy, those are efforts to defeat the likelihood
that the crimes will ever be uncovered. Now, that's a
(27:45):
narrow subcategory of concealment actions, and they're not all going
to fall into the concealing conspiracy. Criminal statute, but some
of them may. Whether any particular overt act that's intended
to conceal the existence of a conspiracy fits within that
(28:06):
narrow category that would cause the statue limitations period to reset,
but you can't find that out unless you do a
real investigation that uncovers those overt acts after the objectives
of the conspiracy are achieved and completed. So we can
(28:26):
just dismiss the idea that such acts were taken before
you even start to look for them. So there's this question,
could Brennan and Comey's false statements be those kinds of
acts that would continue the statue limitations for the conspiracy? Well,
(28:48):
you don't know until you fully investigate the underlying conspiracy itself,
and you can't understand understand the underlying conspiracy, And I
would to be objective if there was a conspiracy without
conducting investigation. So with all of that as the as
(29:09):
the background, what do we accomplish if there is an
investigation and that investigation reveals a criminal conspiracy as well
as exposing conspirators, but there are no overt acts that
would extend the statue limitations so that you could actually
prosecute them. What would happen. Well, we already have policy
(29:34):
on that, and I'll tell you what it is.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Or Michael, hope you're having a great day.
Speaker 5 (29:41):
I just wanted to say.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
I absolutely love the way you argue with yourself and then.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Get all exasperated when you can't get the person that
you're arguing with to understand your point. It's freaking hilarious.
Well let me make a day.
Speaker 4 (30:01):
But let me tell you why I do that, because
I know induitively that many of you out there are
making that same argument. And then I find myself arguing
with and you're right, I find myself arguing with myself.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
All the time, argues with Michael.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Yes, because I know, because this is this is the
lawyerr brain, I'm sitting here and I just made, you know,
a case about pardons, and it's like, get over it.
And now I'm making a case here for an investigation
where the statue limitations may have run. But my counter
argument is, well, maybe it hasn't, but we won't know
(30:39):
until we actually do the investigation. But there's another reason,
which I think is fully in uh conformity or fully
in in alignment with my argument about the pardons, and
that is this the outcome of this investigation could take
(31:01):
the form of indictment that with stands a legal challenge
based on the statute limitations. It could actually result in
indictment of these two yahoos that should be indicted, and
it could stand a legal challenge.
Speaker 5 (31:14):
But let me argue with myself, maybe it doesn't.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
Maybe the investigation which I'm arguing for, results in, Oh,
we're going to indict these guys and they file a
motion to dismiss based on the statue limitations as told,
and you can't prosecute us. And the court dismisses the
criminal charges with prejudice and you can't prosecute them. Again,
I would still argue for the investigation for this reason.
(31:45):
A public report by the Attorney General into the conduct
of members of the Department of Justice and the CIA
acting within the course and the scope of their official
jobs is actually justified based upon the Policy Manual the
Department of Justice, which says the public has a right
to know. In fact, it says, let me I made
(32:08):
a note here somewhere. It's Policy interest number four in
the Manual the Department of Justice. The right of the
public to have access to information about the Department of Justice.
In other words, it doesn't operate in a shroud of secrecy.
So just investigating prior wrongdoing or allegations of prior wrongdoing
(32:35):
is even if it doesn't result in indictments. Is political
accountability and being subject to accountability by the public in
whose name the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the
CIA operate is a price that you and I agree
to pay in advance when you exercise the authority that
(32:58):
comes with a position inside the executive branch the DOJ
in this case, the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA.
Do you want accountability, then let's have an investigation, even
if it doesn't result in an indictment or the statue
limitation says you can't indict, at least we'll know they
(33:19):
really were crooks.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.