once for answers we begin with would 10 on the job paul like senior editor at large and in the house council news he joins us here in studio and in new york city stephen been hogged the former federal prosecutor he's with ken starr during the investigation into prison. upon which the articles of impeachment against clinton were based ok joel so far. as you look at the receiving look at them as they go on. i think that the white house counsel has made a very effective argument and they did it in less time than the democrats took which i think also helped because they were very concise and clear in their reasoning i think the 2nd article of impeachment is toast there's no way that the senate would. convict him on that and probably not in the 1st either but i think you may even get significant number of democrats coming over and voting with

republicans against conviction on the 2nd article of impeachment which is obstruction of congress as for the 1st article of impeachment the question as we're speaking right now is how the vote will come out on witnesses and i think there could be 2 or 3 republicans that vote to hear more witnesses even do you agree with jools and so far. from a political perspective i do not think that the president will be removed i just don't think there are enough votes there and i still think it's up in the air about witnesses but i think what we're seeing is that that witnesses are are a very it's still a pretty steep climb to take to get the 4 votes that they're going to need saving don't you think this should be witnesses as there are leverage trial in every previous. and they had previous things like this there's always been witnesses. i think there should be witnesses i think that

a trial typically includes evidence and evidence comes in the form of witness testimony and in the form of documents or other materials so i think there's a need for witnesses on the other hand this is a very particular kind of a trial it is a political trial and the votes you know we get to impeachment because of substance we start with substance and you can't even get to an impeachment unless you get to a certain level of allegation and proof for and then once you get to that level substance it becomes a political question and so now the question of whether to have witnesses or the question to remove the president of the united states is a political question and if not enough senators fear for their job. about witnesses then there will not be $51.00 votes if not enough senators fear for their job of removing the president then there won't be a 2 thirds majority that's that's necessary so you know if we're talking about up to a pure criminal trial or a civil trial in the courts the united states it wouldn't even meet the definition

of trial but this is just not exactly that and so. you know i'd like to see witnesses i'm a guy who likes disclosure but. the senators get to decide and they're going to make a political decision on that. go alone should you want to hear from the studio so 1st of all there have been witnesses already and in fact the democrats used their 24 hours of opening arguments to play a lot of the witness testimony that when the how issues and then republicans played the bits they said democrats left out but there have been witnesses now there's a question of procedure if democrats refused to allow republicans to call any new witnesses in the house why should republicans reward that behavior by allowing democrats to call witnesses now senate ok better children actually dealt with that question in the question and answer period and he said in a trial and again point is a good one this is not a typical trial but in a trial you don't see a witness for the 1st time. i'm when you are sitting before

a jury there's a discovery phase and as jay secular also pointed out in the clinton trial they had depositions but those depositions were of witnesses who had already testified before there were no new witnesses what i think is happening is democrats are not actually interested in what both is going to say what's the proof of that schumer dismissed on tuesday the idea of going to court to get bolton's manuscript the bits that they could get that wouldn't be top secret or so forth he just dismissed out of hand the idea of subpoenaing the manuscript even as an interim measure i mean if you want the facts why don't you just go for whatever you can get the witness might be harder claims of executive privilege but he's got this book already well you've got documents right they want documents and witnesses why not get the documents you don't want that the reason they're doing this in its initial point this is kavanaugh 2.0 they're just trying to delay this and string it out as long as possible in the hopes that more things come out they just want to throw as much dirt at the president talking to them out you've got the guy who was in the room with them saying this is what do you heard well the guy is the conservatives conservative we don't know that that's what bolton said the new york times article

that brought all this out didn't even quote him didn't quote him that well he can't deny it because his books under review by the national security council and he can't say what's in the book publicly because it might be subject to classification could be top secret could be secret and certainly the communications of a president with a senior advisor would fall into that category so he's he's put himself in this situation because he didn't have to submit the book that way but i think what's happening here is democrats are just trying to prolong this process it's just like brett kavanaugh whatever accusations we can demand again this is not necessary to their case they said they can prove it they have an overwhelming case go forward with the case you indicted you impeached in the house and let the senate decide stephen wouldn't you want to hear from mr bolton i would i would like to just correct one point in civil cases to get depositions in criminal cases with the exception of a very small number a handful of states there are no depositions so in a criminal case you see witnesses for the 1st time. at the trial all the time and

that's that's just a very normal part of the criminal process i would like to hear from bolton i really like to hear what he has to say i would like to hear from in the house i like to hear from anybody who has anything relevant and material to say about this is the situation that's just where i'm at i'm a guy who likes. transparency so that i would love to see all the witnesses but i do agree that this is a political. trial and so the democrats want to at least some of the democrats maybe all who knows want bolton to testify for political purposes but the republicans don't want bolton or anybody else to testify for their own political purposes so i don't think anybody comes to this fight you know with a pure heart just the facts ma'am you know from dragnet i think this is a political event and people are making political decisions can i just say one thing about that i want both him to testify who would you want i want him to or

they might know but not in the impeachment proceedings i think you bring him into oversight and you can raise issues there but the way they ought to have done this was the proper way allowing republicans to call witnesses as well remember all these democrats who say they want both and they don't want hunter biden they don't want the whistleblower the person who made the accuser arguably the president has a 6th amendment right to cross-examine the person who brought this up in the 1st place adam schiff never allowed himself to be questioned at the house judiciary committee so democrats don't want their witnesses republicans want so that's one of the reasons i think both is me not coming as a witness because republicans of said ok if you get bolton in you get moving any or whoever we're getting hunter biden joe biden the whistle blower and all these other people who have kept from us we're going to get adam schiff to tell us how this all happened he said he was going to bring the whistleblower to testify and then he changed his mind joel we had the will have witnesses good enough and publicans as of right now it doesn't seem they have the votes yet to get witnesses but it's still an open question. i know cory gardner who was on the fence has come down

against witnesses joni ernst who was thought of as being on the fence has come down against witnesses lisa murkowski and mitt romney seem to be leaning toward witnesses romney has a personal issue with the president or koski the room he's made since his statements is not personal well he has a long standing personal grievance against i would actually have his speech in 2016 in march when he attacked trump in vigorous and personal terms and he has not forgotten that trump proved him wrong by winning and he's never forgiven trump for that you know he invented a whole fake twitter persona he called himself appeared to elect a and he would comment on trump's things and this is this is a guy with an obsession against trump so he's going to call for whatever makes trump look bad lisa murkowski it's hard to know but she also voted against brett kavanaugh so i think she's likely to come down in favor of calling more witnesses susan collins hard to know i think she may come down for more witnesses because she voted for brett kavanaugh so she kind of wants to keep in the middle of the road i don't know if they'll get lamar alexander i don't know if they'll get that for 34th

republican and then the question will come down to the chief justice who could cast a tie breaking vote in a 5050 tie i don't think john roberts is going to want to see even what do you think is going to happen. you know it's i think it's impossible to taleb start of the question but you have a poll that i've seen that's a 75 percent of people only united states want to hear witnesses but you have the cottle pushing very hard to keep everybody in line there you know as i said before you have a political situation here where there is substance that got us here and then politics from there it's kind of hard to see how the politics are playing out it's clear that bolton 'd changed the politics i don't think we're anywhere near witnesses when we started but you know the bolton testimony i think pushed along in that in that way if something else came forward i think that could change but we'll just see who wins is that mcconnell keeping everyone in the. nor is that the

senators that are more scared about the 75 members that will no longer only think they want to hear it will on friday right well no on friday and by the way if it goes to witnesses i don't think that the president's anything to fear but remember they're going to have hunter biden at the very least they're going to have a whistleblower and they probably have to have adam schiff it's for that reason alone i think the democrats will back away from witnesses they actually don't want the full story of how this attempted coup because in my view that's what this is how this attempted coup came out i don't think this started with substance i think this started with politics and i don't think democrats want those witnesses because they don't want that story being told david what do you make of the way this is started handled himself before the for this impeachment hearing. i thought is quite good i think you know the the republican defense here really has to start with a very strong view of the of the president's powers and a very broad view and i think judge starr. made

a very strong case for a wide ranging executive power and also the notion that the that this would not be an impeachable offense because it falls within the president's because. you know allowing the the president has the power to run a foreign affairs essentially so i think he did a good job better than i just did of laying out that position you know can i say with regard to i didn't support clinton's impeachment even though i felt he had committed crimes i didn't think they were important crimes relating to matters of state and i oppose this impeachment now obviously i'm supporting trump and i'm conservative and so i would i would oppose him being impeached and removed but i actually support a smaller executive a weaker executive and i still don't think that the president should be impeached i just think that the case is so weak and that the constitution bars this case from

even being brought and it's not a question of whether we want to stronger or although that is correct that's part of the argument now on the senate floor whether the president was disobeying foreign policy or whether he said that is. that's all within the executive i'd like to see a more vigorous congress i'd like to see a congress that is good at holding the administration in check i just wish they wouldn't abuse their power. thanks to both of you we'll be having you on again jol and stephen we think them for their time today will be back with more politicking after the break. aeroflot russian and lights. you know world of big partisan

logs and conspiracy it's time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that mainstream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smarter we need to stop slamming the door on the bats and shouting past each other it's time for critical thinking it's time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now we're watching closely watching the hawks.

terror of russian and light it's. one we'll talk about here is the debt of 3 or because planet earth has a most fear of approximately 3 to 4 times global g.d.p. which i. because between like 80 trillion so there is like you know almost 400 trillion now in debt it's the debt us here and it's has a profound impact on the 21st century. in december a justice department investigation into the origins of the so-called russian. found that was insufficient evidence for some of the foreign intelligence surveillance

act warrants issued for tom campaign staff a caught up page one of the main characters in the probe george probably double as another campaign staffer was also swept up in that investigation and 2017 he pled guilty to lying to the f.b.i. i was sentenced to prison george profitable is joins me on the set to talk about what the d.o.j. findings means that his case and this recent congressional campaign thanks for coming back thanks so much for having me larry you get me a little confusing the last time you were on michael horowitz since you're the inspector general of the department of justice completed his investigation of the origins of the russian probe how did you get swept up in this it's an incredible story larry and thanks a lot for having me what happened exactly as according to the horowitz report there seems to have been some sort of surveillance on particular associates such as

myself general flynn and even carter page even before we joined the dollars from campaign this was actually in the horowitz report itself i had been working in washington d.c. for 5 years leading up to my work advising both the ben carson campaign and from campaign and eventually his friends ocean team now why i was under surveillance according to. the horowitz report there seems to have been some sort of targeting against me for ties related to my business ties if you will to israel the middle east and my associations with this individual joseph smith it's a very convoluted story that even the horowitz report i don't think really got to the core of why did you plead guilty there are a lot of reasons why i think people plead guilty to various charges in the american justice system there could be intense pressure in my case i wasn't allowed to actually hire the proper legal counsel that i did want in washington d.c. i was told by special counsel that if you choose

a particular lawyer that you wanted in washington d.c. who just happened to also be the brother of joseph schmitz who i work with on the campaign will throw you in jail you can do it i was under sealed indictment of some nature i couldn't raise money and they basically told me if you don't plead guilty to this we're going to come after you with various charges that at the end of the day at 29 years old i want to continue with my life and i just threw in the towel so yes there are 14 days in prison it was 11 once and then leave 100 of those and find this or have you said is through all of this why did i need this why do i get involved in the 1st place you had dealings in the middle east i imagine you a successful. would you need it oh you know i was i have to say i felt relatively compared to other people who were in this industry and in washington at my age i was very successful but one thing i do say to everybody who asked me the same exact question is i don't i wouldn't change a thing i wouldn't change anything about working for both ben carson and donald

trump because i think the 2016 election was certainly the most consequential election especially of my lifetime and having the ability to contribute to both to 2 individuals one who became the secretary of hud and the other who's the sitting president in any way that i could i think that's something that always cherished for the rest of my life as you live. according to the f.b.i. and actually this is an excellent point that you should brought up my of 30 to us from the f.b.i. who were recently declassified and in these 3 o 2 as they stated that puppet up us never lied to us he misremembered certain dates and then we wanted to basically reach out to him to see if he could help us even more the moment i decided i didn't want to work for the f.b.i. or to wear wires for the f.b.i. then the hammer came down on me and that's it's all actually public now have you been contacted by anyone a lawyer or your lawyers come to the but in the government to explain the department of justice report i have nots but just like most americans i had an

opportunity to really relish the fact that we are now exonerated i mean when you see that the department of justice itself releases statements that their own warrants and targeting of americans associated so a presidential campaigns was illegal that's a big deal and i think that statement is going to continue to reverberate through this entire election cycle and we might actually see possible criminal proceedings on people who conducted this illegal surveillance against us moving forward another investigation is happening conducted by u.s. attorney john durham which would build upon the in i.j. report what do you expect there the john durham probe actually goes to. the core of my entire story much more than the muller probe much more than the horowitz reports there have been reports that john durham and attorney general william barr are actually basing their investigation off of my accusations whether it was my closed door testimony to the house oversight committee a year and

a half ago in front of congressman john radcliffe and congressman mark meadows or of a certain elements have come out recently in my book or in headlines this investigation is much different than the horowitz reports and the miller report this delves into the involvement of the cia and foreign governments in their interference in spying on americans associated to a presidential campaign it's a very sensitive matter you have u.s. allies caught up in this the president himself has called out the u.k. and australia for spying he has tweeted this and this is what john durham is looking into called the state target how it got caught in the crossroads of the plot to bring down president drome. again i ask you ever regret in the this. will the one thing i do regret is talking to the f.b.i. without in the tourney in the united bed movie in hindsight of hindsight of course is 2020 but when you're just leaving the inauguration as i was having meetings with ryan's priebus and anthony's care looking to see what position i'd have in the

administration and the f.b.i. comes to your house a day or 2 later you're not really thinking that there was any criminal malintent that you were involved in or you're actually under investigation which apparently was the case and we now know was the case are you running think congress in california's 25th district the seat was held by katie hill who got a silver in trouble and she had to resign. you're going to run the against steve knight isn't the the favorite so steve knight was the sitting congressman before katie hill took over and i'm very happy to say that i am necked and neck with him in terms of fund raising i'm a 1st time candidate running in a district that i don't even live in right now i live adjacent to the 25th congressional district it's about 30 minutes away from where i live currently and i've raised almost as much money as he has we're reaching $3000.00 individual donors we're surpassing over $100000.00 in donations t.v. appearances have continued to you know happen and i'm just getting my policies out

there and i think is really resonating with the people people want an outsider to shake california politics up they want a candidate who will work with the administration and will hold certain people accountable namely the intel agencies who did conduct this horrendous hoax upon the american people you don't have to live in the district no you don't just have to be a resident of california if i have had the privilege to call california home for the last 2 years with my wife i know a lot of the issues that the people face in both that district in the state as a whole and a lot of what happens in california moving forward is not simply going to affect the state but the entire country as a whole what is your the key to your campaign is what the key to my campaign is. working a getting to d.c. on day one knowing the players reaching out to them and working with them california today is deemed the resistance of state unfortunately i don't think it's it behooves the voters in this state to be called that and to know that the caliph that the state of california has sued the federal government over 50 times since

the president was elected i need to get to washington d.c. i need to reach out my hand to the president to various congressmen and work with them we need a bipartisan approach to the homeless crisis here to the tax crisis here to the security and the immigration crisis that's affecting californians are never in an every day level and even environmental problems that we're facing my district is burning down and we need to deal with the democrats who are favored to win the state right certainly the presidential is this foregone conclusion how do you win so katie he'll raise $6500000.00 to operate steve knights her current or my competitor christy smith has raised about $850000.00 so clearly there's a lot of money going into the democrats to maintain hold on this seats but let's not forget the 25th congressional district was a historic republican district buck mckeon was a congressman then you had steve knights and a middle class conservative district as long as our messaging comes through and we

do raise money and we have grassroots support i think we could take back this district if the president trouble campaign i don't think the president have been told from people close to the president that he is actually not getting involved in this particular race and actually i don't think it makes sense for him to actually even get involved in any primary races i think of a republican gets or the primary whoever it might be in any race then the president if this is an individual who would like to work closely with the administration then the president should get involved so if you are the nominee you would expect the president to support you since you support him so vigorously i don't expect anything from the president the president it's. it's his judgment and he can do as he pleases just like he could pardon anybody he wants or he doesn't need to if he supports me of course i would be honored to have his support your attorneys to dish in the white house for a pardon what have you ever as of right now a nothing and i don't think other president is even dealing with anybody who was

caught up in the russia scandal including general michael flynn who's been dealing with this incredible legal situation for i think over 2 years now it where he's stuck in limbo and let's not forget that paul metaphor has been rotting in prison for the last year and a half so i think this would have to be pushed back till after the election one never knows what do you expect a pardon i don't expect anything in life except either pay taxes i think that's what life that's the only thing that you could expect moving forward in life life is very unpredictable you never know what can happen but if i am part and of course i would honorably accept that you've launched the podcast punching back explain the title oh it has some very happy you brought that up punching back with george papadopoulos is exactly that it's a it's all about me getting out there in front of the american public and even the global audience and telling my story like i've never told it before because for so many years not months or years the american public and even the global media caught on to my story distorted my image painted be as an individual i wasn't as some

might traitor and now with all these new investigations ramping up with new evidence emerging we do see that there was clearly a different story out there and no one can tell it like i can and that's exactly what punching back is all the thank you for done thank you so much appreciated blair george pub the davos we thank him for his time today and we thank you for joining me on this edition of politicking remember you can join the conversation on my facebook page or tweet me at kings things and don't forget to use the politicking hash tag and that's over this edition of politic game.

aeroflot russian and lights. you know world of big partisan movies a lot of things and conspiracy it's time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that mainstream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smarter we need to stop slamming the door on the bats and shouting past each other it's time for critical thinking it's time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now for watching closely for watching the hawks.

aeroflot russian and lights. live. join me every thursday on the alex simon show and i'll be speaking to guests of the world of politics small business i'm show business i'll see you then. i actually don't think monopolies per se are the problem it's the it's monopolistic access that monopolies have to credit or to politicians and probably both the crony financial ism crony capitalism that's the big problem.

during the great depression which i'm old enough to remember there was most of my family were unemployed working. there wasn't it was bed you know much worse objectively isn't today but there was an expectation of the things were going to get better. there was a real sense of hopefulness there isn't today today's america where shade by the turn principles of concentration of wealth and power. reduced democracy attack solo do no engineer elections manufacture consent and other principles according to no on chomsky one set of rules for the rich officer said. that's what happens when you put her into the. narrow sector of will switch rule is dedicated to increasing power for chills just as you'd expect one of the most

influential intellectuals of our time speaks about the modern civilization of america. asians around the globe report and chinese racism and increased stigma over growing fears about the coronavirus. are already experiencing subtle forms of. people not taking part in every class people in the city away from minors. qual way gets its way in the u.k. but leaves washington fuming at its ally for allowing the chinese telecom giant her . build britain's 5 g. network. and on national t.v. who are going to wave goodbye. and backs it gets his final rubber stamp from the european parliament is british i mean he's bound to the last curtain call.