Radio America Online News Bureau

McCarthy

Abortion & the Filibuster, Killing Russian Generals, The Aggressive Green Agenda

by

Listen to “Abortion & the Filibuster, Killing Russian Generals, The Aggressive Green Agenda” on Spreaker.

Join Greg and Emily Jashinsky of The Federalist as they welcome signs from Sen. Susan Collins that she has no intention of ending the filibuster to pass abortion legislation but they also note how abortion could cause tension inside a GOP coalition that now includes a lot of people who don’t consider themselves social conservatives. They also wonder why U.S. officials would publicly confirm that American intelligence has been directly involved in tracking and targeting Russian generals killed by Ukraine. And they fire back as Biden climate adviser Gina McCarthy vows an aggressive green agenda – including more than a hundred regulations on appliances and severe demands for “sustainable airlines.”

Please visit our great sponsors:

My Pillow
https://www.mypillow.com/martini
It’s a BOGO Extravaganza! Buy One Get one on MyPillow Bed Sheets, Giza Elegance MyPillows, 6pc Towel sets, and Roll & Go Anywhere MyPillows and more!

XChair
https://xchairmartini.com
Call 1-844-4xchair to save $100 today!

Share

Now What? – Ball of Collusion, Part 4

by

Listen to “Now What? – Ball of Collusion, Part 4” on Spreaker.

In the final part of our conversation, “Ball of Collusion” author Andrew C. McCarthy pivots from how the Trump-Russia unfolded to where we go from here.

What answers can we realistically expect from the Justice Department’s inspector general and from Attorney General Bill Barr’s investigation? Beyond that, how badly damaged is the credibility of the Justice Department and the FBI as a result of all this and how can that reputation be repaired.

Listen to the podcast as McCarthy explains that repairing the credibility of the DOJ and FBI is directly related to whether anyone is held responsible for what those institutions did to lose so much trust in the first place.

Share

What Took So Long? – Ball of Collusion, Part 2

by

Listen to “What Took So Long? – Ball of Collusion, Part 2” on Spreaker.

Andrew C. McCarthy served as Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He led the successful prosecution of the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman, and his accomplices in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other plots to attack New York City landmarks.

Now a contributing editor and columnist with National Review, McCarthy has tracked every step of of the Trump-Russia investigations. His new book is “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.”

In the first part of our conversation, McCarthy explained to Greg Corombos how the investigation really started, the role of then-CIA Director John Brennan, and how President Obama must have known and quite likely approved the investigation.

In the book, McCarthy says there is no evidence whatsoever of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. If that’s true, then why did the Mueller investigation take almost two years to complete?

“When you look at the indictments Mueller filed, it’s quite clear not only that there wasn’t a Trump-Russia conspiracy but that they affirmatively knew there wasn’t a Trump-Russia conspiracy,” said McCarthy.

Listen to the full podcast as McCarthy also offers a compelling case that Mueller and his team knew there was no conspiracy more than 18 months before releasing their report earlier this year.

Share

How the Trump-Russia Investigation Began – Ball of Collusion, Part 1

by

Former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy joins Greg Corombos for an indepth conversation about McCarthy’s new book, “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.”

Listen to “How the Trump-Russia Investigation Began – Ball of Collusion, Part 1” on Spreaker.

In this first installment, they discuss whether the initial investigation into allegations of a Trump-Russian conspiracy were based on concrete evidence or the desire to find something. They also examine the role of then-CIA Director John Brennan in the early stages of the probe.

Finally, McCarthy responds to critics who insist he is wrong to conclude President Obama knew about the investigation during the 2016 campaign, pointing out it would be far worse for the president NOT to know that a major party nominee was allegedly conspiring with a foreign adversary.

Share

McCarthy Sizes Up Mueller Testimony

by

Listen to “McCarthy Sizes Up Mueller Testimony” on Spreaker.

Former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III offered his highly anticipated testimony on Wednesday, but the day turned out differently than Democrats or Republicans anticipated.

Democrats clearly tried to assert that Mueller would have indicted President Trump for obstruction of justice of Justice Department policy did not forbid the indictment of a sitting president.  Republicans were determined to point out that the scope of the Mueller investigation was too narrow and ought to include an examination how how the surveillance of Trump campaign officials began in the first place.

What no one expected was the Mueller performance.  The former FBI director appeared to lack a strong command of his investigation and even admitted he did not oversee it on a day-to-day basis.  He often searched for answers in a manner that shocked analysts on both sides of the aisle.

But what is the impact of Mueller’s testimony?  Did Democrats make the case that Trump only avoided prosecution because of a loophole?  Did Republicans succeed in showing that a much broader investigation is warranted?  Why is Mueller’s shaky performance a big deal?  What is the next big step in this saga?  And is either side worried about ongoing Russian efforts to meddle in elections?

We discuss all of these questions and more in our conversation with former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, now a contributing editor and columnist at National Review Online and a contributor for the Fox New Channel.

Share

What We Really Learned from the FISA Warrant Application

by

All sides of the Trump-Russia debate see the recently released application for a FISA warrant against a former Trump campaign figure as confirming their previously held opinions on the matter, but a former federal prosecutor says that’s because some are conflating two very different matters and reaching a faulty conclusion.

Over the weekend, the FBI released a redacted version of the FISA warrant request it sought against former Trump aide Carter Page.  The paperwork shows the FBI did rely heavily on the Steele dossier, assembled by a former British intelligence official hostile to Trump, and a footnote in the application admits the dossier was funded for months by the Hillary Clinton campaign an the Democratic National Committee.

So what does former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy see as the headline in this new information?

“That it’s a confirmation of my previously held position,” joked McCarthy, before turning serious.

“My previously held position is basically what we learned in congressional hearings over the past year-plus, which is that the FBI used the Steele dossier, which is a partisan opposition research screed, which was basically commissioned by the Clinton campaign,” said McCarthy.

McCarthy says there’s still information we don’t know, but that we also know there’s no further corroboration of the dossier in the FISA application.

“We know that that’s not there because there have been hearings.  There have been reports.  Senators (Charles) Grassley and (Lindsey) Graham, for example, put out a report on a classified memo that was declassified earlier this year which laid out not only the passages of the actual FISA warrants that were relevant but also explained what the FBI had done was rely on the credibility of Christopher Steele,” said McCarthy.

So how are all sides claiming victory after the release of the FISA warrant application?  McCarthy says it’s because many people are confusing two very different matters: whether Carter Page was someone worthy of further federal scrutiny and whether the government had built a legal case for obtaining a surveillance warrant.

Page aroused suspicion years before the 2016 campaign for trying to become a Russian agent but was dismissed by the Kremlin as an “idiot.”

“To get a FISA warrant under federal law, you have to have probable cause that an American citizen in this case is willfully acting as a clandestine agent of a foreign power.

“That is, he is quite intentionally acting to advance the interests of Russia in the United States in a clandestine way, which means under federal law is a probable violation of federal criminal law,” said McCarthy.

He believes the feds fell short of that burden.

“They didn’t have that that we can see, other than through the Steele dossier, which is why I think (former FBI Deputy Director Andrew) McCabe said that they couldn’t have gotten the warrant without the Steele dossier,” said McCarthy.

“It’s fine to say we should have been concerned about Carter Page and even that we should have investigated Carter Page.  Getting a FISA warrant on someone is a drastic step up from that,” he added.

McCarthy also believes President Trump could easily clear up all speculation about what’s still behind those redacted sections of the FISA warrant application.

“President Trump has the power…to declassify and publicize anything in the way of classified information that the government has.  Until we get this information, there’ll be a lot of this speculation that goes on,” said McCarthy.

Share