 Yeah, Trump week, Friday at 11, every Friday at 11 with Tim Appichella and Cynthia Sinclair. This is one of the most important shows, actually, I must say, because you have to watch the subject not only every week, but every day, but every day, but morning, noon, and night as you watch our democracy deteriorate under this president. So we have an agenda of special categories this week, and Cynthia, would you lead off and tell us what the categories are, one by one, and Tim and I, and tell us your nomination for what event hits what category. Okay. And then Tim and I will compare notes on whether your nomination should prevail. Okay, that sounds like a plan. Number one is the most outrageous action, and that for me would be that Trump claims total exoneration when both the Mueller report and Barr's report in his letter said the exact opposite. It said this does not exonerate him, right? It says we can't, we don't have enough to charge him to indict him, but he's not exonerated either. And yet the first thing he says out of his mouth is I am exonerated. Tim, what do you think about that? Is that fit or are there other things that are more outrageous? That fits, but I'll also get a part B to that, and that is Barr's proclamation that spying, the word spying took place on the 2016 presidential campaign against President or candidate Trump. And I think that's an outrageous, how do I just say that? Without any statement of evidence. Without any shred of evidence. You played right into Trump's hand as a well-healed lackey by using that word choice. Yeah, that's why we titled this show, Would the Real Barr Please Stand Up? Right. It really seems like Barr is just a mouthpiece for Trump. And he got confirmed, as opposed to all those other department heads that are active, where you don't need to confirm them. And so in this case, they managed to get Barr through, but he's really being a mouthpiece for Trump. All that people are disappointed because they thought there would be some impartiality to the position and the gravity and the importance of that position that there would be some impartiality. And that doesn't seem to be the case at this time. Yeah, good luck with that. There's no impartiality. He's just a mouthpiece. And what's worse, may I add, that this is only out of the box. We're only a few weeks into Barr's administration, so to speak. It's going to get worse. You're going to see this happen. It's already clear that he is not his own man, that he has no backbone, he has no independent thinking going on. He's merely working for the president, not the country, in violation of his oath every day. And let me add that one of the other elements in our discussion today is the investigation and I guess the indictment of some fellow who worked for the Obama administration. And they're proceeding against him. And that's by the Department of Justice, not by the FBI itself. So what's happening is Barr is just doing everything that Trump wants him to do. And that's one of the other things. We have to remember that Barr wrote a 19-page op-ed where he totally said, you know, a president can't be indicted, he ripped on the Mueller investigation, all of those things. It was basically like he was applying for the job. No, the full page is the one that he put out after the Mueller report. It was his resume. It was not bad, but really it was a resume to be selected as an appointee for Attorney General. That's how I looked at it. That's how I looked at it. Two times, things are exactly as they seem to be. Hey, so all right. Well, hang on, you know, let me just, you know, hey, you know, we got to look at fairness and nature. Fairness can be. Because Barr did retract a bit by saying the word spying, he said, in front of Senator Schatz, during the testimony. I don't own Senator Schatz. Yes, we all know Senator Schatz. And in front of Senator Schatz, he said, unauthorized investigations. Surveillance. Surveillance, thank you. Yeah. Surveillance. Well, that's because Schatz said, wait a minute, that's a really high-charged word you got there, buddy. So hold on. Yeah, so he did moonwalk back, the spying word, the terminology. But this is all about Trump's paranoid concern that they were spying on him. Right? Well, he adopted that conspiracy. Wait, we're getting ahead of ourselves. Yeah. That's number four. So going back to Mueller, I just want to make a couple of thoughts about Mueller. So we haven't seen the redacted report yet. Tim and I have a bet. What's the date? 28th. That's correct. And if it doesn't come in by the 28th, he buys me a fat lunch somewhere, I'm telling you. A nice one. And vice versa. I'll buy him a big lunch if he does. Get in on this. Wait a minute. Highs Steakhouse. There you go. They have lunch. I have lunch there. And for anyone listening who doesn't, you know, travel to Hawaii much, Highs is a first-class place. We might have to negotiate Highs. We're going to face the stake now. Anyway, so, okay, when we see it, we're going to see it, I predict, you know, highly redacted. We're not going to be able to tell, you know, much about a lot of things. And the redactions will cover not only what legitimately could be redacted under, you know, an agreed approach, but a lot of other stuff. And we'll never know. There'll be a big fight about the redaction if we get the report. Well, can I just go over the redactions real quick? Because we should know what those redactions are going to cover according to Barr. Yeah, let's do it. Very quick. Any grand jury material, number one. Number two is any information on ongoing investigations. Now, these two make very good sense to me. Number three, information about sources and method. And four is material that compromises peripheral figures and their privacy rights. Now, that one. Privacy rights, is that a protected, you know? Yeah. The thing is, you can take those categories and expand them into a whole damn report. I'm sorry. Well, remember, the whole report, all the pages were stamped confidential. So right from the get go, he had classified everything as something that shouldn't be shared. Yeah. Okay, well, I've got it. What about the New York Times? What about the New York Times article? That's right. I wanted to... Can you just summarize that for our viewers? Well, in the Patriot Act and the National Security Act after 9-11, right? They... A couple of the sections in those bills that went through, one is... Is it 1040 or is it 1050? No. I can't remember exactly. But at any rate, it makes it so that any intelligence information or investigations must be... And they even said they changed the wording to make sure it was very specific that they cannot withhold it from... They shouldn't... They don't get to redact the grand jury. They don't get to... They don't get to redact anything. The statute says not may be, but must be disclosed to the House Intelligence Committees. Must be. This is a matter of law adopted and signed into law some time ago. Right. No question that this report covers those kinds of things. Right. And no question that the Intelligence Committees need all this information. Because remember what the report was all about. It was about Russian spying, Russian involvement in our election system. That's what it was about. And so the statute is very clear. It's not even a question of subpoena. Right? They don't even have to ask for it. They should get it. It should already be... It should automatically get it. Meanwhile, the House hasn't even subpoenaed yet to get this report. And we're all waiting... Lord Fauntleroy, we're all waiting as gentlemen for a report which I feel either isn't coming or is going to be redacted out of existence and which should be delivered in full to the House under law in full to the House. Why are we being this way? Why are we not going straight to the point? Why are we not getting it? What is wrong with the House? Maybe Nancy Pelosi is just being a little too kind here. Maybe she's waiting for Trump to step in something. What do you think, Tim? I don't know the answer to that question because I'm under the impression we're going to get that report before the 28th of April. Let's stick into it. Now, it is to the degree of how many pages are redacted and whether or not these four categories of which I just mentioned were appropriate or not for redaction. A couple of them definitely seem appropriate to me. Yeah, no, but what about... That's nice for a committee other than the House Intelligence Committee. What about the House Intelligence Committee? They should see everything. They should see everything because they have a job to do. And nobody else is doing that job. It's not like they haven't seen sensitive information before in their capacity as members of that committee. Well, they should have got it first. That's the thing. Why is Barr coming out with this public version first? They should be coming out with the one for Congress first. Not the one for the public first. I don't know whether we have a category for that, but that threatens the United States. Yes, it does. That also ties into Robert Mueller's motivation on how he kind of punted the ball to Barr. Right, and Barr was unworthy of it. He punted it, I think, as responsibility, but what are the motivations behind that? And there could be a few. Well, I hope we find out soon. Well, I think he believed it. The leaks haven't covered it just yet. And they were friends. And also, I think maybe he dripped to Barr. And maybe, again, we said this before, maybe Mueller just said, look, I don't see this as criminal intent or it's able to file charges for criminal charges. So therefore, I didn't say it was. Now remember, in an impeachment process, you don't have to be guilty of a crime or even be indicted for a crime. High crimes and misdemeanors. And so you don't have to have that as the first stepping stone. An impeachment process is largely political. You know, the Democrats don't have the votes. They don't have the power to do it. That's why she doesn't want to do it right now. If something was discovered that was, you know, seriously criminal, then she might do it. Well, what if something seriously discovered that isn't something you can indict a criminal charge to, but it's really serious as an action against the President of the United States that is contrary to the interests of the United States? Right. I mean, if they could impeach Clinton for having sex with some of her home. To me, it seems ridiculous. And if both houses don't agree, then it's not going to go anywhere. And frankly, the Republicans are in such moral disarray. That's my term. I agree. I like that. They would never go along with it. It would have to be really, really, like shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue, right? Really bad before the Republicans would even consider doing it. And that's not happening yet. Yeah. Anyway, it's okay. To me, that threatens the Republic big time. Not only in terms of the process that we're seeing, the destabilization of Congress, destabilization of the investigative committees, but also our inability to deal with foreign threats. We haven't dealt with it. Realize we have not dealt with it. The funding was cut for the 2020 election for people to ensure that the Russians were not going to meddle in the 2020 election. He has cut staff. Okay, so that was reported about three weeks. It's going to happen. He's setting up his own reelection. Everything he's doing is setting up his own reelection. Absolutely. That's the words right out of my mouth. What's the next category? The next category is the meanest action, which is, for me, reinstating the family separation policy. He even gave direct orders to not follow the judge's orders, because the judge said, you can't do that anymore, right? And now he's telling Border Patrol and ICE agents, you just forgot that. That's going to be a candidate for undermining our democracy. Telling people to ignore federal court orders. Well, just before this program, an hour or so before, it's alleged that he was dangling a pardon out to one of his administrative folks. You disregard the law and close the border down, and if anything happens, I'll dangle out a pardon for you. That's being recorded right now, so I don't have all the details. Oh, my gosh, that's great. You know, we're getting there. We're getting to the impeachment level of violation of the Constitution, where really everybody has to consider that. The new normal is not enough to excuse what he's doing. It's getting worse and worse, telling people to ignore federal district judge orders. It's incredible. He's breaking down the government. We should say before the new normal, we should start adding the word the new deplorable normal, because the new normal doesn't describe really what's happening. It's the new deplorable normal. Okay, I have other thoughts about the meanest. There are other mean things. We don't know all the mean things, really. There are mean things happening in the country with respect to Hispanics and investigation and high schools about Hispanics and terrible things happening in this country about that. We don't know about that. They're not being covered. There was coverage in the New York Times a couple of months ago about some cases in Long Island, I think. Right. But there's other things happening. We just don't know. However, we know that he's trying to withdraw all aid from at least three countries in Central America, let those countries sink into oblivion, and instead of trying to build them up and make them more comfortable to live in, if you can do that, he's making them less comfortable to live in. So more people will come to the border now. So he wants the people there. Yes, he does. He wants the assault on the border. Right. So he's withdrawing aid. I mean, that's mean on a number of levels. On a number of levels. The other thing, and I guess this has to rise through winning the nomination for this category, but we had a climate change flood in Mozambique where 1,000 people died the first time the first day. It's in terrible shape. It's, you know, Puerto Rico, maybe worse in terms of the loss of life. Have you heard the United States stepping in, offering any aid, sending anybody? All of Europe is trying to help them. A number of countries in Europe are trying to help them with money and resources and people and food and medical and all this, but not the U.S. We have completely abandoned, abdicated world leadership on, you know, disasters of that nature. Well, this goes back to something you said a long time ago, and I'll try to rephrase this properly. Why would you want to send aid to an asshole country? Oh, yeah. Because that's how he thinks about them. Yeah. Just as simple as that. I'm sorry to say it. It's an asshole country in his mind. And now, is he the one telling don't send any aid to them? I don't know that. Well, he could, though. Couldn't he? Right. He's a one man band. He's running this government as a sole proprietor. Sole proprietorship. He could snap his fingers just the way he could have snapped his fingers on Puerto Rico, but didn't. And then he lied about how much money he gave Puerto Rico. Right. Let's go to the next. And how many people died? Right. He understated that. Thank you. Thank you. Let's go to the next category. Next category. Can I say one thing that he quoted, though? Yeah. He tried to blame it all on Obama as far as the family separations. That's right. He said Obama was the one who built the cages. Obama is the one who separated children, which is a lie, because really, Obama did separate families sometimes, but only when there was abuse. It was very, you know, special circumstances. Or a drug. Did they say there was drug running? Drug running. Or they were, yeah. There was an OT case that there was separation. This was an automatic thrill tolerance policy that Jeff Sessions announced via Roman 13. After the fact. Out of the Bible. Out of the Bible. Just justified it out of the Bible. And they did. They implemented this with what? 3,000 separations? Right. And they're still like 1,000 kids that they don't know. Well, that's the thing, you know. I think you can make a huge distinction from whatever any previous administration did. And Trump is that under him, homeland security, not only separated these kids, they kept no record of where these kids were going. Right. And they moved these kids thousands of miles away from their parents into odd places. And they still, even under court order, they cannot repatriate them because they don't know where they are. Right. I mean, that's criminal right there. The people who have them know where they are and they could bring them back. Why don't they? That's my question. The parents who have them. They don't know who's the child and who's the parent. I know. I mean, it's hard, but they could try to get involved and they're not. That's what's good to me. You know, the thing that really got me under that quotation that you just read was, and I stopped it. Yes. Oh, that's right. You did say that. I stopped it. Right. But my favorite. I think that's why it wins the category. That's the favorite thing about immigration this week. I don't know if immigration is a separate category, but my favorite thing is the Sanctuary City threat. Oh my gosh, yes. He's going to send. He's going to bus everybody to his sanctuary city. He's going to bus all the, it would be immigrants to Sanctuary City, San Francisco. Here they come. I'll teach you mayor's a thing or two. And why? I heard him say this in his own voice. Why? Because he wants to punish the Democrats. It's the Democrats. He's punishing in these sanctuary cities. Nancy Pelosi had a statement for that. How deplorable. How deplorable using children as his political pawns to punish the Democrats for their opposition to his instant immigration demands. In his national emergency. I know that he's. I've never seen anything like this. But it should become obvious that he's got some kind of organic rain thing going on. It goes beyond just a pathological personality. David Jolly called him a sociopath, a former Republican senator from Florida. I didn't hear that, but I. We see this. We see this on an increasing basis. Right. More more arrogant and more disconnected. And I mean, it's like he's his thought process is failing. Not that it was any good in the beginning. We did bad things when he was in business. But now it's really getting very. What's the next category? Oh, number three is the action that most undermines democracy. And for me, it's bar being Trump's AG instead of America's AG. And I see him pushing the military, the police, the ice, the border patrol, everybody. You. Well, how much will you do? What are you willing to do for me? And the people that aren't willing to do it, they get rid of him and he's like he's building up. You look at how Hitler built the SS, that's exactly how he did it. He weeded out the people that would fight against him and just kept the guys that he knew were going to stand with him so that when it came time, he had his. Let me use an example on this point. We have a Secretary of Homeland Security, Chris Nielsen. Now I am not a cheerleader for this person as, you know, implementing the zero tolerance policy and going along with it and promoting it and defending it. Just keep in mind that he's the one who did that. Yes. She was doing his bidding. So finally she stepped in and said, I can't do the things you're asking me to do because it's against the law. So that was enough for him. You're out. You know, they were having conflicts before anyway. That was enough for, say, you're out. But what he's doing, he's replacing so many different positions in Homeland Security at a time where we don't need that vacancy and he's going to pick folks that are loyal and that is undermining the democracy of our country. And he's going to treat them as acting instead of permanence. So you don't have to go to the Senate. Even the corrupt Senate won't even have a whack at them and they can be completely unqualified. Now I'm sure there's time limitations on a temporary appointment and I don't know what those time stipulations are, but it's enough time to get them to 2020, I bet. Yeah, maybe so. So these appointments are happening left and right and you have a hollowing out of all these agencies to only people who will abide by his instruction. Maybe we're assuming that he really wants to run for 2020. Maybe his agenda is, I'm just going to do what I can as a one-term president, no matter how destructive it is to our democracy or against the Constitution. I'm just going to do what I can in my four years and how much can I implement doing so? Remember the words of Michael Cohen. He will not go without a fight. He will not leave. And he cheated to win the first time. He's going to cheat so he can win the second time. Why would it change? It doesn't make sense that he would change and suddenly become somebody we can trust. Well, when you clear out an entire agency of its senior administrators and now you have five vacancies, at least at the top, how does that agency function? I mean, it's not just border control. We've got all sorts of security issues that need to function properly. One of the things under Homeland Security is election. That's one of the things that Homeland Security does. That's a good point. And it's like, hmm, when I saw that, I was terrified. I thought, oh my God. So he's completely controlling the agency that oversees elections. Or the implementation of the votes in the election. For example, if he loses, and if Michael Cohen is right and doesn't want to go quietly, who is going to take him physically out of the White House? Well, by law, it's the U.S. Marshals. Yeah, right. To see by law. As prescripted. But they're on his side now. I'm going to listen to the president, because he'll instruct him and all that. A thought just occurred to me is we should not rule out the possibility that it won't be an election. Oh, come on. I can't go with this. What I'm saying is you can manufacture an emergency at the border and use that to justify illegally moving money around among the government. You can also manufacture another emergency. An international emergency. A war, if you will. A stupid war that he creates. Okay, then say, well, you can't do this now. We have more important things to do. I have to prosecute this war. I have to save America. I understand this. I understand this concept. But even during wartime, World War II, we had elections. Did we not? Yeah. The only way around it is martial law. Martial law is the one way that he can get around having an election, because he is all powerful to do whatever he wants under martial law. So if he can somehow trigger a big protest that erupts into fighting on the streets, which could easily happen. I don't know if you guys heard that. It was a phone call that came in to Eric Swalwell. And it is, we're going to effing kill you. You are an effing, blah, blah, blah. This is an effing war. You're dead. You're the first one. Don't you come for our guns, because you're the first one we're going to shoot. This is a war. Who said this? And we're ready. Some guy calls up. Some Trump or guy calls up. Eric Swalwell. Swalwell, yeah. And leaves that message for him. Okay. Well, we know we have millions of people that share that philosophy. It shares that philosophy. And, you know, again, we know we have a lot of white nationalists out there, and we know that they support this president because this president gives them a sympathetic ear and a nod and a wink. We know that. We shouldn't be surprised by these phone calls. What you don't want to have is another Timothy McVeigh situation, and innocent people die as a result of it. Right. So let's know that that's a given. Right. Well, it is. And the thing is, our Department of Justice and our FBI to make sure that we don't have another Timothy McVeigh catastrophe. Well, Timothy McVeigh was a one guy. I think what he's been trying to push people towards anyway is for all those white nationalists to really rise up. And if the Democrats try to stand up, Trump, all these white nationalists are going to fight back. Now we've got fighting in the streets. Now he can declare. That's called anarchy. You know, there's remedies to handle anyone who's trying to promote anarchy. And, you know, resurrection. That's another show. That's a whole other show. I agree. Because you're talking about institutions that you assume will be effective to deal with anarchy. Yes, that's true. I don't know if you can make that assumption anymore. Not the way things are going. What's your next category? Next category. The most notable distraction. For me, that was Barr and Trump's claims of spying, which is a loaded word. We already sort of talked about it a little bit. And, you know, I saw this one thing that I thought was really important. The FBI, okay, at the election time, didn't do the spying. They were spying on Trump, blah, blah, blah. They said not a word, right? The Russian investigation about Russia, all of it was very secret. The investigation was kept secret. Now, about Hillary Clinton, that was not kept secret. That was splashed all over everywhere. So obviously, the FBI was not out to get Trump. It's obvious. But he's trying to claim it. All right. More distractions. You agree with Cynthia on that? Yes, I do. I'm offended by the use of the word because you can't do a surveillance without going through the FISA courts. You can't go through any of the surveillance illegally. And if it is illegal, then it's fine. But that's not how this thing happened. You even had the Republicans, the gang of eight that saw these FISA warrants and, you know, they didn't protest it. They didn't say this is illegal. Three times. This wasn't spying. So, you know, again, Trump has gotten ahold of the message and he's gotten in front of the media and he's the pipe-piper on all these lies. Right. And the media needs to call it out a little bit more stronger, I think. The media has to do an analysis on everything. They don't have time. They can't. Because he's right. Keep him busy. Okay, next one. I'd like to make one up. Insinuate one here. Okay. This is your favorite nepotism of the week. Okay. Any thoughts on that? I nominate Ivanka. He wants to nominate her for the World Bank, the American seat of the world, U.S. seat of the world. Right. Because she's good with numbers. Yeah, because she's good with numbers. You know? That's what he said. That's my favorite nepotism. You got a better one? Well, just a friend. Something about Jared. Oh, no, it's not nepotism, but it's friends and cronies. Herman Cain for the Fed. There you go. That's my favorite. That's more important than, you know, than the Ivanka appointment. Right. Because that's going to have an effect. I mean, assuming that he controls the man and he controls the Fed and their setting of interest rates, this could have a new effect. Well, they make their recommendations in the beige book. Okay. They make recommendations. They don't set the rates. It's the chair that says, I look at all these data points and, you know, we're going to have a little committee, but yeah. Okay. Why am I not, why am I not comforted by that? Well, you shouldn't be. It's just crazy. Right. You know. Okay. What else? We got another category. Let's see. Wait. The very last one is, oh, the most destructive to our global relations. And, and I thought it was Trump's involvement with the Netanyahu campaign and everything that he's done in Israel. Well, I mean, there's a fair chance they're going to destabilize or already has destabilized the Middle East. Yes, it has. Right. You know, a year or two ago, you could say, look, leave Israel alone. And they, they're a democracy. They'll find their way. They, they vote. They argue. Nobody agrees on anything. Blah, blah, blah. But now, what's happened is he supported Netanyahu in every way. And effectively stepping in, just like a command-influenced thing, stepping in. And he, you know, he shouldn't be doing that. And in this case, it may be very myopic to do that because what Netanyahu is doing and Trump and Netanyahu is doing is likely to destabilize the Middle East. And already, you can see the storm clouds gathering over the West Bank and over Gaza and all around Israel. It may not, it may not be, it may not yield any kind of security that Netanyahu and Trump are saying that it will yield. One last thing is the big lie. And for me, it's the WikiLeaks. Avoidance of knowing anything about WikiLeaks. Although, you know, as we saw during the campaign, hello WikiLeaks, come on in and show us your email, 30,000 emails. Now it's not his thing in life. Now it's not his thing in life. Yeah. Not my thing in life. I don't know anything about it. You're forgetting how many times he said he loved Julian Assange. 100 plus times. Now he doesn't know anything about Julian Assange. Yeah. I mean, I guess we have amnesia and he's the only one that doesn't. The bottom line is what drives us to do this show every week is that it seems to be getting where it's every week. We aren't seeing a disintegration. We are. I mean, we're seeing it over time. And I want to make one statement before we close. We do have to close here. Who is responsible for taking action, you know, to stop him from doing the things that we have reported. So Congress has, the House is crying, you know, in their own way. The Senate is not trying. Under McConnell, the Senate has abused its oath to defend the Constitution very clearly. That will go down in the history books forever and ever about the factors that led to the decline of this country. Who is helping us? Who is protecting us? The courts are being, you know, seated with right-wing conservatives. And, you know, you get to the Supreme Court until you go through the, you know, the District Courts and the Circuit Courts and they're being seated with conservatives. So I'm not sure that we, the people can rely on them. I'm not sure that we, the people can rely on the Supreme Court given all these right-wing conservative appointments. The alternate responsibility now, as I see it, is the individual citizen that believes in this country. What does he do? What about the lawyers? With a pitch for it? I have a question. Where's the lawyers? That is my point. That's my question. Where's the lawyers? The lawyers all swore to defend the Constitution, too. The lawyers all swore and learned how to, you know, defend and protect and advance the rule of law in this country. They should be saying something. I agree. The American bar should be saying something. The bar association in every state should be saying something. We haven't seen that. Yeah, that's a good point. There should be an uprising and a loud, a loud statement by the legal profession in this country. Let's follow that as a thread and see if that happens. Wouldn't that be nice? Yeah. Cynthia Sinclair, Jim Appichella. Thank you, Jay. Trump week. You guys are great. Thanks so much. See you again. Aloha.