Speaker A
[Music] They're back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report on the phone. We should say early this morning when I got into the office, we were doing our prep and I got tweeted at by our next person on the phone to
Sam Seder interviews Michael Tracey on the Mueller investigation and Russia coverage controversies, debating journalistic integrity and political narratives.
Key Takeaways
- Michael Tracey views the Mueller investigation as fundamentally flawed and based on a fraudulent premise.
- There is disagreement even among left-leaning commentators about the validity and handling of the Trump-Russia probe.
- Journalistic responsibility and transparency are central themes in the critique of media coverage.
- The investigation had ancillary benefits in prosecuting Trump associates unrelated to the core collusion claim.
- Rational, evidence-based discussion is necessary to navigate politically charged investigations.
Summary
- Sam Seder discusses with Michael Tracey the criticisms regarding coverage of the Mueller investigation, particularly involving Marcy Wheeler.
- Michael Tracey argues the Mueller investigation was launched on false pretenses and considers it a fraud from the outset.
- The conversation explores whether the investigation was appropriate or justified, with Tracey expressing agnosticism but skepticism.
- They debate the role of journalists and media personalities in shaping public perception of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
- Tracey critiques the Democratic Party and mainstream media's uncritical support of the investigation and intelligence officials.
- The discussion touches on the implications of the investigation for Trump affiliates like Manafort and Stone.
- Seder challenges Tracey to clarify his stance on the legitimacy and necessity of the Mueller investigation.
- The interview addresses broader issues of government transparency, media bias, and political accountability.
- Tracey defends his journalistic approach and critiques what he sees as conspiratorial hype surrounding the investigation.
- The dialogue reflects tensions within progressive media about how to cover complex political and intelligence matters.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Tweet Criticism
- 03:04Was the Mueller Investigation Justified?
- 05:51Michael Tracey's View on Government Transparency and Mueller
- 08:18Agnosticism and Accountability in the Investigation
- 10:46Discussion on Media and Political Bias
- 13:30Marcy Wheeler's Credibility and Coverage
- 18:56Broader Implications of the Investigation
- 26:30Closing Thoughts on Media Responsibility
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
the effect of, will I apologize for having Marcy Wheeler on the program on her coverage of the Mueller investigation writ large? In fact, let's read it right here. It's, hey Sam Cedar, you going to apologize for repeatedly hosting Marcy
Speaker A
Wheeler, an FBI cooperator and proven fabulous, the Judith Miller of the Trump Russia fiasco, on your show for uncritical interviews, thereby deceiving your audience and helping to perpetuate a—I don't know if that was spelled right—but a giant fraud? And the answer is no.
Speaker A
But I wonder, perpetrate a fraud, a giant fraud, and—well, the answer is no. Michael, welcome to the show. But I am interested in talking to you about this because I am somewhat baffled by some of the critique and
Speaker A
the celebration or what it's about on your part. So let's just start with this so that we have some basic sort of understanding of where we both stand on this. Do you agree that, like, you know, Glenn Greenwald, who also has a
Speaker A
similar critique as yours, and Matt Taibbi, that there should have been an investigation launched by Robert Mueller? Well, first of all, Sam, I genuinely appreciate you having me. You know, I feel like this is an extraordinarily important topic and needs to be
Speaker A
discussed rationally by people of good faith, so thank you. You know, surely I do want to get to that, but I want to explain that tweet first because I know it's a very—sorry, we will get to the tweet.
Speaker A
But let's start with just the underlying, really the whole—well, no, the whole impetus of the conversation is that I've been interested in and having, you know, having a broader conversation about this, and you were one of those people and it
Speaker A
popped up. I mean, to be honest, you wouldn't be the first person I would have chosen to represent this. I'm just, to be honest, but it just, you know, fate would have it. But before we get to
Speaker A
a third order or fourth order thing in terms of, like, you know, you want to talk about Marcy's credibility, I just want to know the underlying—the underlying reason for this conversation is the Mueller investigation. So let's just start.
Speaker A
Do you think—because if you think there was no reason for that investigation, then people are going to understand at least where you're coming from here. And I'm just curious if you do, if you do, did you think that there was a
Speaker A
reason to have the investigation of the Special Counsel? Well, the Special Counsel investigation we now know was launched on false pretenses because the impetus for the investigation at the time, the impetus for the investigation according to all the Democrats who
Speaker A
heralded Robert Mueller as this valiant favor—Democrats did not have any Robert Mueller, but they heralded his appointment. Okay, Ben, they touted him vociferously as the person who is going to hold accountable for his purported conspiratorial relationship with Putin.
Speaker A
That came to be characterized as collusion. That was the whole reason why Democrats were so adamant that this investigation has—well, we did wrong by motive. My point: who appointed Robert Mueller? Rod Rosenstein. I don't absolve Rod Rosenstein at all. I don't absolve any
Speaker A
of these security state officials that Democrats and MSNBC decided that they were in love with over the past two and a half years because they were convenient foils for Donald Trump. I think it's a total—great. Do you think what John Greta—
Speaker A
Michael, listen, this is a very easy question for us to have to start this question to start this. Okay, the question is, do you think, did you think at the time of the investigation—and if it's a different answer from dead and do you
Speaker A
can tell me—but did you think it was appropriate to have this investigation launched? And if you want to say, do you now, in retrospect, want to have a different opinion, that's fine too. I'm not—this is not a gotcha question.
Speaker A
This is a question I got to find out if the underlying thing was a valid thing to have happen. Sure. I think the underlying thing has now been proven to be a fraud, and it was apparent to me
Speaker A
from the very outset, so going back to July of 2016, that it was a fraud. Okay, good. So, okay, the narrative—we are not answering the question, Michael. This is a very easy question because when Glenn was asked this question, when Matt is
Speaker A
questioned, they can answer it without giving an extended—it is a very easy question. Yeah, but it's a complicated subject, so I'm giving a little lead-up before I fully answer the question, which I guarantee you I will. Now, I always
Speaker A
believed that maximum government transparency is optimal, but I was never cheerleading for Robert Mueller because I understood that the entire investigation was predicated on a fraud. Therefore, I didn't—what I didn't think it would uncover anything that related to its
Speaker A
core mandate, which was the Trump-Russian conspiracy. So no, I wasn't going around screaming and chanting and marching in the streets like a lot of liberals and Democrats for Robert Mueller and like having him as the folk hero, right? No, I
Speaker A
was never an advocate for the investigation, but I didn't oppose it. I was agnostic about the investigation. Okay, so I'm not asking if you cheerleaded for the very investigation. I'm not asking if you marched against the investigation. You are a journalist. You are a person who
Speaker A
obviously has opinions. Do you think—did you think it was appropriate to have the investigation? I mean, if you thought it was a complete and total fraud, you must have been against the investigation from the very beginning before it was even launched.
Speaker A
Well, I wasn't against the investigation because I always thought that it had the potential to implicate various Trump affiliates and, you know, crooks that he surrounds himself with in crimes that are ancillary or unrelated to the core
Speaker A
conspiracy charge. So if somebody like Manafort or, you know, Roger Stone or somebody got wrapped up in a criminal indictment that stemmed from the original Special Counsel investigation, I wasn't going to complain about that. I want people who are in tradition to
Speaker A
power. That's what hapless panel, correct? Right, that's what—that's what happened. But the investigation also sparked a tidal wave of conspiratorial fresh. Okay, Michael, Michael, Michael, you are giving me an answer about retrospect. If you want to say in retrospect I regret that
Speaker A
I thought there should be an investigation or in retrospect I was against this from the very beginning, that's a perfectly suitable answer. But I'm just trying to get us on some type of ground of footing. I'm just basically
Speaker A
like, are we both on the same, you know, planet here? Because I can answer this question regardless of what I thought happened after the investigation. I do believe there should have been an investigation. There clearly was an
Speaker A
intelligence investigation, and when he fired Comey, the head of the FBI, and went on and said I fired him because of this investigation, I clearly thought there should be an investigation. Now you're telling me you had no opinion. You were
Speaker A
agnostic as to whether the present United States should be investigated at any time day. You were completely agnostic as—did I want Trump to be held to account and investigated for his actual offenses and the many harms? And
Speaker A
you knew what these offenses were. You knew his offenses worldwide. Michael, listen, I guess everybody knows you have a problem with Democrats in MSNBC. I have—I have some similar critiques, but I'm just trying to get out what you knew
Speaker A
before. Do you think there's some type of commissary I hang out at at MSNBC? I don't know. You've been a contributor, haven't you? Yeah, I show up and I don't—I go—I go on these shows. You're gently
Speaker A
with the hosts and thoughts, correct? I am friendly with the host. Yes. Okay, have you pressed them on their complicity in this overwhelmingly, staggeringly, mind-bogglingly fraudulent enterprise that they were central actors in promulgating something?
Speaker A
know that I would have put it that way but okay but I mean listen I mean listen I have been very vocal on this show about the excesses of this but I'm trying to ask you a simple question that
Speaker A
you seem to be reluctant to answer for some ungodly reason for him I'm happy to answer it what did you know about Donald Trump's offenses before the investigation in July what did you know and how did you know this I knew that
Speaker A
there was no rational basis for even postulating that there could have feasibly been a Trump Russia conspiracy which is what precipitated the investigation again I'm not crying about the fact that other people you know offense has got uncovered incidental to
Speaker A
that but I wasn't also were you aware of that I knew we would spawn this paranoid frenzy that was going to overtake the Democratic Party and lots of liberal activists so cause real damage to the body politic so okay so you're convinced
Speaker A
that there's been a real damage to the body politic now where you were where were you aware that the Russians were behind the hacking into the the emails dump and you know what they did on social media without without any
Speaker A
question as to what implications had had on the election because you and I have no idea what that was I suspect it wasn't a dramatic impact on the election although obviously the emails were quite problematic for the the the Clinton
Speaker A
campaign but nevertheless I happen to think there's probably a dozen things that were were but fours in terms of her loss but were you aware of that and do you acknowledge that that is the truth well my attitude towards those emails
Speaker A
was that they uncovered genuine corruption and now I understand that but that's not what I asked you but I asked revealed that revealed that Bernie Sanders got screwed out that's not what are you being so evasive why are you being so evasive here
Speaker A
I'm inviting you on the show because you wanted to malign one of my guests and cry about my am i inviting someone on my show and I'm asking you some basic questions and already ten minutes into this you won't even answer the basic
Speaker A
question do you believe the report that you now tout in its saying that the Russians were interfering in the election by hacking into Hillary Clinton's emails and by their shenanigans on show social media do you think that is true yes or no did you
Speaker A
know that in July I unequivocally reject this notion that that election interference so we're talking about social media quotes on Facebook answer my question not some question in your head I agree I agree that all those things have been alleged a carrot being
Speaker A
carried out by the Russian government and I agree today do you agree bar memo that you are saying exonerates Donald Trump do you agree that that letter at least says that they did that yes that let her go say that of course okay so
Speaker A
you don't believe that part but you believe the other part you you think the bar memo you think the bar memo is controlling on the things that you're interested in proving but not the things that you're not interested in proving
Speaker A
the thing I'm interested in illustrating is you being so evasive here it's pathetic you know what honestly listen listen this is what I'm gonna do I'm gonna invite somebody else on here who has some integrity to talk about this
Speaker A
who shares very similar positions and reader questions you're interrupting me after thirty second because these are simple yes-or-no questions just to fight just it so that what can actually have a conversation and you're you're dragging this out by fourteen minutes
Speaker A
what's it looks like yes or no question asking again Darren the answer I've been so answered you as on please Bob jus well the first one is should there have been an investigation you claim you're at you were agnostic
Speaker A
about that fine that's your answer if people want to buy that that's their your answer you did you do you believe that the Russians hacked into the the emails and that they had social media BOTS and whatnot can you give me 30
Speaker A
seconds to answer the question I promise I will you got 30 2018 there was no evidence furnished by any law enforcement authority to the Russians hack the DNC emails then robert muller did issue an indictment that alleged that russian
Speaker A
intelligence actors were responsible for the dnc hack i accept that that constitutes evidence is it dispositive a hundred percent definitive evidence no but as evidence that i'm willing to grant that there's a preponderance of likelihood that yes the
Speaker A
russians did hack those DNC emails and yes that they were responsible for some social media hijinks but the idea that those means on facebook and these listen i don't we don't need to debate that because i agree with you we don't
Speaker A
need to debate that because i agree with you now good sir lee said this from the day one so okay so now we we agree that the investigation uncovered the what the preponderance are the everett evidence any qualification you want to do that
Speaker A
but the on balance the investigation prove things to you or at least led you to believe things that you didn't know back in July of 2016 right so we can see that even though in July of 2016 when
Speaker A
you did not believe the Russians were involved in any of that your assessment as to whether there could have been some type of coordination with the Trump campaign in that regard would have been would have been sort of a based upon a
Speaker A
lack of an awareness that the Russians had done anything so it's conceivable at that point but you but I'm gonna grant you that despite the fact that you were agnostic about this and your scrutiny so that you you were
Speaker A
agnostic as to whether the existence of the investigation should have happened and I will also add like I said some of the biggest critics of this investigation as to how the behavior of the Democrats and the journalists around
Speaker A
it have behaved believe that the investigation was justified so I personally believe that the justification was justified and now we can at least go forward and talk about the implications of me having somebody on the show who is read into this stuff
Speaker A
and started out as a skeptic herself but because of firsthand knowledge that she had of one of the potential players in this this hole that was caught up in the investigation or at least peripheral to it came on my show three times after
Speaker A
that to discuss the investigation and you can tell me why I need to apologize to that for my audience great here's why so I agree 100% with Matt Taibbi when he says in his recently published piece which I'm sure you're aware of that the
Speaker A
scale of the media error as it relates to Trump Russia matches or exceeds the scale the media error as it relates to Iraq / WMDs not in the sense that they caused comparable levels of death and destruction because obviously Iraq
Speaker A
cannot feasibly be surpassed in that arena but because of the all-consuming deluded behavior that totally overtook huge huge swathes of the media to the point that there's now this kind of Russia skeptics caucus in media that includes Agni Greenwald Tybee Arron
Speaker A
mafia the nation etc because there were so few of us who are offering a countervailing perspective and thankfully we have gotten some recognition over the past couple days and I'm gratified by that I don't want to gloat I don't want to celebrate cuz
Speaker A
it's actually a very depressing time I don't even do it I despair that's all you know well Judith and Judith Miller is known primarily as the New York Times reporter who credulous Li repeated the information that was fed to her by
Speaker A
government sources pertaining to aluminum tubes remember that which was then Oh believe it yes I remember occasions right yes but you got so young listeners and viewers Sam's I'm just refreshing the memory and that's what she's primarily known for but she's also known
Speaker A
for going to prison or rather jail for 85 days because she refused to give up a source to law enforcement authorities so Judith Miller is not seen as a total journalistic disgrace on reasonable grounds but at the same time she refused
Speaker A
to commit the mortal sin of journalism which is that you can't give up your sources to the police at the cops or the FBI whereas Marcy wheeler who's now running around pretending like she's a journalist with covering the Michael
Speaker A
Michael Michael Michael Michael well I'm not gonna let you sit here and and in in malign in that way alright nobody was gonna bring up nobody was gonna bring up you accusing Maxine Waters an old lady of assaulting you alright but but if you
Speaker A
want to play that game we can play that game absolutely we got her on speed dial bro listen so so because you really catch it we brought up something that's totally unrelated no I thought about because of your petulant but her deranged
Speaker A
conspiratorial Russia comments and in the heat of the moment I didn't phrase a tweet as accurately as I could have but the idea that I alleged assault or violence an absolutely false and I would hope you would retract that I can show
Speaker A
you the initial tweets if you really want to look at them yeah well you show me the drew the tweets and then I'll and then I'll retract it okay so alright so you have an issue you're comparing Marcy wheeler to Judith
Speaker A
Miller who was dating okay who was protecting members of the Bush administration who are perpetrated a fraud on the United States with the purpose of invading of getting the country to rally around the invading and occupation of a country which led to the
Speaker A
deaths of hundreds of thousands of people by DoD accounting millions of people you're telling me that this is a that she plays a similar role in this because she not at the behest of the FBI not at the behest of a government
Speaker A
official felt that she was involved in this investigation in some way because of information that she had received from someone she felt was playing her that's the acquit that's the that is the equation you want to make now Judith
Speaker A
Miller no hold on wait a second was it was not that the destruction wrought or the death caused was comparable it was the media error this is not tell you this point no I'm talking about Judith an element I'm talking about Judith
Speaker A
Miller's role in a and so when she lied for Scooter Libby and for Dick Cheney she knew that she was opening up a portal to a war and so your suitors you're you're suggesting which is you don't give up your sources to the police
Speaker A
Marcy wheeler not only didn't give gave up resources voluntarily so he wasn't in some kind of court proceeding like Judith Miller was Marcy wheeler decide on what if Miller was protecting people who ultimately had to be pardoned by a
Speaker A
president who had to be pardoned by a president or have his his sentence commuted by a president who perpetrated this lie the the analogy here is so bizarre Michael but let's get to this but since you brought it up cuz I wasn't
Speaker A
going to you know have you defend this analogy because it wasn't yours but since you did I'm very curious as to how you might defend this analogy because to me this whole to the extent that there was anything
Speaker A
there's there is a malfeasance by the press it's far more like the OJ Simpson trial to me which was completely overblown and proceeded as if you know every day they were camped out there a lot of people made their careers off of
Speaker A
it and I found the whole thing to be a horrible exercise on the behalf of the media but at the end of the day what was the stakes let me ask you this let's say MSNBC functioned as what media outlet
Speaker A
would you let's say they functioned like just they because you don't expect that the cable news is not going to cover an investigation of the president right you would be security sibling John Brennan and James clapper yeah okay all right
Speaker A
but you know my expectation is that they would cover it I I have no problem but let's do this scenario where MSNBC with them it to be hiring John Brennan the former director of the CIA absolutely okay great then we agree okay
Speaker A
but I'm asking you I'm trying to find out what the baseline is here and I want to find out what the implications of this because if you're gonna compare it to weapons of mass destruction which led to the deaths and destruction of
Speaker A
hundreds of thousands of lives because that's the stakes right that's the stakes because I want to know what the stakes are here and if they're even remotely comparable because the OJ Simpson thing is a far more apt analogy
Speaker A
because the stakes at the end of the day were you know what the the united state politics is less informed that people have exploited this for making a lot of money and a name for themselves and whatnot and so I want to know how you
Speaker A
can justify like what would have happened in the world what would be different today if if MSNBC hadn't hired those people that we don't think they should have hired if they had just covered because obviously they've got a
Speaker A
covered a little bit it's an investigation of the president and they've got to cover when you know Mike Flynn it turns out was looking to kidnap somebody for Turkey or when we have indictments that we both agree seem to be valid of operatives from
Speaker A
Russia and I don't I have I have a problem with the United States interfering in elections and I have a problem with anybody interfering with ours and I probably talk more about the former than I do the latter frankly but
Speaker A
assuming MSNBC just covered the investigation in a completely non cheerleading way what would be different today the rendering of the stakes that I agree with is the one that's been put forward time after time by Glenn Greenwald Matt Taibbi max Blumenthal
Speaker A
other principled non supporters of Trump who have been demons what would be a different of the joint and I'm telling you what the stakes are now I said from the outset that it's not comparable in terms of the death and destruction
Speaker A
wrought obviously the invasion of Iraq was one of the greatest crimes the US government has ever committed however in terms of media failure and the production of an all-consuming frenzy that totally dominated American politics and media for approaching three years
Speaker A
and required all kinds of self-delusion elevating all kinds of cranks and morons and losers into positions of prominence in the media and attributed them with unearned influence yes I think that they're influenced to do much in terms of real-world scopes and I could tell
Speaker A
you the bullet on excited scientists which has the doom fake Doomsday Clock these familiar with that mm-hmm minutes to midnight in terms of like when the analyzation is going to be destroyed you know so you have all kinds
Speaker A
of factors that they incorporate when they make the judgment as to where you know at what point the clock should be set and in 2018 the clock was closest to midnight as it has ever been and one of
Speaker A
the reasons was you know addition to climate change others other other contributing factors one was geopolitical tension and this narrative which has totally consumed American politics for almost three years has ratcheted up you don't think the Donald Trump scrapping scrapping a nuclear
Speaker A
agreement that had been in place for decades led to that more than what Rachel Maddow was saying about Russia oh of course that was a I don't I don't I I agree with that wholeheartedly where where this assessment can you point a listeners to
Speaker A
where where can you point your listeners power where can you point my listeners to where they can go find out just how much the the hyping of the investigation not the investigation itself right because because all those people
Speaker A
you cited but for you being agnostic all thought it was perfectly legitimate to have that investigation so where can you point me to where these this clock and I can tell my listeners they can go they can go see this link where the hyping of
Speaker A
the investigation led to us being that much closer to a nuclear destruction your listeners kentuc Doomsday Clock into google and i can find it and they can find and the and they can assess how much of the hyping of that investigation
Speaker A
led i don't know i don't know that be process undertaken by The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists actually typically occupied well I mean deeply zoom that you had okay so so the stakes are that the Doomsday Clock may may because we
Speaker A
don't know as you've just said may have been raised maybe I just in your ledger okay and that's it or is there more more in terms of the stake yeah well I mean I know we this merio is the investigation Jose
Speaker A
MSNBC does not hire people who I would have preferred they did not hire and and this is the the this is the alternate universe and the the investigations not hyped there's no cheerleaders politicians don't use this investigation as a
Speaker A
political cudgel in any way because we know that politicians would never do that and should never do that what and so we have in your favor the possibility that sandwiched in between the end of a massive nuclear proliferation agreement
Speaker A
being scrapped and a president who wanted to pull out of NATO and Alliance is changing and the scrapping of the Iran deal that it could have been not just the investigation but the hype of the investigation could have led the
Speaker A
atomic clock to get closer to midnight I've put that in your ledger what else well what else is really significant okay one stake that I think pertains directly to this entire disgusting ordeal is that the reputation of the
Speaker A
media has been obliterated Matt Taibbi very cogently makes this point in the piece that I hope you've read he outlines the mountains this mountainous pile of errors and outright fraud in some cases retractions know it this is your case - let's just be clear because
Speaker A
this is your case right this is the case you're American right okay but but but in that people because I'm just using that piece as a reference point and I've you know compiled errors of my own in the past but the way that the media has
Speaker A
totally just spread itself I think it's a danger for the country because with a president that has authoritarian tendencies like Donald Trump you need a measured and rational and evidence-based opposition a rope I wrote about this in Fortune magazine yesterday you need an
Speaker A
opposition that could actually count around the sports tendencies but what this opposition did to Trump so this kind of confluence between the liberal media and Democrats touting this conspiratorial fairy tale what they did was encourage his worst impulses so they
Speaker A
wanted that they criticized him when he engaged in diplomatic overtures with this nuclear-armed state and said Oh any kind of vague sign of friendliness toward Putin is proof that he's colluding with Putin so what a trump do he tore up the INF treaty and which may
Speaker A
spur a nuclear arms race again I'm not absolving trunk himself of any couple baolian this he's the president and I pin blame on him for sure and what he bombed Russia's equine state repeatedly in the Middle East Syria he's
Speaker A
attempting to overthrow the government as well Venezuela and in part citing as rationale the fact that Russia needs to be driven out of Venezuela which is their you know chief ally in the Western Hemisphere he sent lethal arms to
Speaker A
Ukraine in contradiction with his own campaign rhetoric the list goes on so this climate that has been fostered don't wait a second like Adam okay hold on for one second let me just let me just listen I know okay yes increased
Speaker A
geopolitical hostilities and endanger the American public so these people who were against him tearing up that treaty he did it because ostensibly it was going to look like it it was him being tough with Russia right although I think
Speaker A
you'll find people who would argue that it was probably Michael Michael I'm going through your list I'm going through your list okay our Syria policy I'm sure you're aware of right that the Obama administration was was arming through the CIA was arming people in
Speaker A
Syria right and to the extent that Trump was bombing in Syria there's no evidence it seems to me that it was in some way it was in some way not helpful to maintaining Assad in power which is in
Speaker A
and frankly look I don't think we should have been involved there since day one but I think that Assad was perfectly fine with just that airfield being bombed yes they rebuilt it in two days well I think things are a little more
Speaker A
sophisticated than that Michael but if you want to believe that that's fine and and it's not clear to me that the tearing up of the nuclear proliferation deal doesn't enhance Putin's strength to the extent you're saying the Venezuela
Speaker A
thing has been on the agenda of people like John Bolton for a long time not just on Bolton but has been out there in Republican circles for a long time you may recall Hugo Chavez was also demonized for a long time but if you want to think
Speaker A
that that is somehow a function of his his his his feeling like he needs to stand up to Russia which I don't know that the American public was terribly savvy as to the Russian Venezuelan relationship then that's certainly your
Speaker A
prerogative but all of those media stories that you're talking about the long list if you ever went to empty wheeled net which is Marcy wheeler site you won't see you will see that she was way ah way out ahead of of I don't know
Speaker A
what you've written about it but others on saying the steel document dossier was more than likely a complete farce she was way out ahead on asserting that she possessed secret evidence that she handed over to the FBI that was going to
Speaker A
prove that there was a trump Russia conspiracy now Muller has issued his findings and there is no such conspiracy and Marcy still being cryptic and evasive when asked what it was as he actually turned over to the FBI she
Speaker A
still won't give a straight answer I think that investigation there's elements well we got to see the report really until we assess that right because you can say that what happened did not reach the level of criminality that would have afforded a an indictment
Speaker A
but you can't say that what she is claiming didn't happen you can say I'm her assessment of the level of evidence for criminality was wrong and it might have been and it appears to be but you cannot say that what she said and
Speaker A
claimed happened didn't happen oh I'm sure something happened to her the the critical detail was always how she portrayed it and what she did with that journalistically she portrayed it as smoking gun evidence in a bombshell that was going to being you know the key
Speaker A
that opens the door to this grand Russia collusion conspiracy Muller totally obliterated that possibly don't know what mothers all you've seen is one sentence of what Muller said so stop characterizing Muller you're characterizing a bar which was that
Speaker A
there was no Trump Russia conspiracy and that's exactly what Marci said would be established by this evidence that she claimed that she possessed and hand over handed over to the FBI and this kind of extraordinary and I think I think I
Speaker A
think that that that we're going to have to get an accounting at one point as to whet where that evidence fits in but it's simply it's it seems far too early before we get that and for you to claim
Speaker A
that she is like Judith Miller protecting politicians who lied to us she may have been wrong in her assessment in the import of what she knew as how it fit into a broader investigation but the malign intent that
Speaker A
you seemed to be wanting to keep on her as part of your what you perceive is something that you know uh you know as you've won some type of Academy Award or something because we most of us not you
Speaker A
you were just agnostic as to whether there should be an investigation of the Trump administration without really knowing any of the details like there was evidence of Russian meddling but the rest of us including everyone you've cited today agree there should be an
Speaker A
investigation so you're going around parading now that the investigation is over and has done its job you're you're walking around as if you were some type of clairvoyant all you did is probably critique the media for getting carried
Speaker A
away with a story but you've been unable to list one concrete fact and I can list hundreds of thousands of concrete facts as to why the the scale of and the implications of what the media did running up to this is nowhere near what
Speaker A
happened during the Bush administration with lies into into Iraq and I can point to hundreds of thousands of concrete factors here's a concrete fact for you Marcy wheeler was asked by Bob Wright on blogging Katz a couple days ago about
Speaker A
this whole episode where she gave over information to the FBI that she still won't elaborate on and Marcy said yeah I don't think it's totally panned out as to what I handed over the FBI may well have to study that I'm quote crazy and I
Speaker A
think that you know plausible because the rationale that she gave for why she handed this over to the FBI and I'm going to quote you something here that's wrote if something happens to me if something released if someone released a
Speaker A
stolen information about me or knocks me off tomorrow everyone will know why and who likely did it says she she says she was saying that she could have been killed by Russian well no no no Russians over yeah well you don't know you don't
Speaker A
know who she was referring to if you think she was gonna be killed by well listen we know that Donald Trump has had associates who are involved in the Mafia right was gonna be killed you're wearing feel excited Felix aider Felix a doctor
Speaker A
well listen you don't know what contributed to her fear well I don't and that's why people have been asking for to expound on it and she said fastly refused and let me also give you another quote as to what impelled her to hand
Speaker A
over this information to the FBI again commit a mass of journalistic breach that nobody really bothered to scrutinize because she was assumed to have credibility I should say that she has impressive research skills and I followed her work for many years but she
Speaker A
said as a rationale for why she did this quote this investigation is not primarily an investigation into Donald Trump it's an investigation into the people who attack the United States it's time Republicans started acting like that like that matters you know it's far
Speaker A
you know no I'm glad I mention that because that board out to be absolutely correct wasn't it excuse me Mike we have already stipulated haven't we that the russians hacked in to to Clinton's emails right we have already
Speaker A
established that they have attempted to alter the outcome of the election whether they did or not we don't know but yes you've just appreciate you bringing that up because I think that's about as as as exculpatory of your charges as you would
Speaker A
want where she said this is not about because theoretically right well that could still be in play and we don't even know do we Michael or do you now have the same knowledge you had in July of 2016
Speaker A
nothing about the knowledge that I've accumulated since then when weeds me to believe that the quote that the characterization of quote attacked on the United States is accurate that's incredibly sorry Michael are you are you accusing somebody of being hyperbolic
Speaker A
like is that what you're doing are you accusing someone of being hyperbolic in a blog post Michael is that what this is about you don't like her hyperbole I don't like the fact that she was touted as this expert on trump Russia including
Speaker A
on MSNBC in The New York Times on the basis of some delusional fairytale that she crafted for her stuff what delusional fairytale you don't know this Michael you talked about getting out ahead of your skis buddy you should be
Speaker A
very careful it's not over yet though is it hey guys I ask you a quick question do you think that you know in a vacuum a journalist burning a source of the FBI raises ethical concerns in a vacuum yes yeah
Speaker A
okay so then why didn't you probe her more in depth about her rationale for doing this I went back and listened to some of that initial interview you did with her in July of 2018 the hell she said was you know I can't talk about
Speaker A
that she gave kind of cryptic hints as to what her reasoning was and even now after moer obliterated her reasoning for it she still not yeah you don't know what Muller has done you don't know what Muller has done you tell me what you you
Speaker A
don't know we can tell you why Michael because I have followed Marcy's work for over a decade buh-bye excuse me Michael let me finish I followed her work and I find her to be incredibly credible all of her reporting
Speaker A
in the past has panned out all right she started off as a skeptic she has been a critique as loud and as significant of a critical voice on the national security apparatus as anyone in this country as anyone in this country
Speaker A
she has done far more research into this than I know that you have and so that's why that is why I gave her wide berth and I trust her judgment and the reason why Michael reason why Michael I
Speaker A
wouldn't help you on I wouldn't have you on it you know since you reported on sandy from this program frankly it's because I don't think you have the same level of rigor or integrity that's why okay but I appreciate your time I think
Speaker A
you've had your say if you want one final word to use your your adjectives about how disgusting all of this is and how angry you are at at you know various individuals becoming stars on MSNBC please I am angry not just about that
Speaker A
but because a mammoth fraud was perpetrated on the American public and had all kinds of deleterious consequences that it's going to take years if not decades the bully reckoned with as Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald and others have the thing was yeah once
Speaker A
she became a collaborator with the FBI she ceased to perform any kind of recognizable journalistic function and she'd been treated with extreme skepticism after that very point but instead she was treated to like glowing Washington Post profiles where she was
Speaker A
you know it was said that you know she burned a source because she had this you know really revelation of conscience you know she had all these easygoing interviews with people like you or she wasn't challenged on why she did this
Speaker A
massive breach and it turns out that sure enough Oliver no no that's not true last part listen I'll let you edit or lies all you want but you can't make up stuff all right bye Michael thank you for
Speaker A
joining us I really do appreciate it
Topics:Mueller investigationRussia collusionMichael TraceySam SederMarcy WheelerMajority Reportjournalismmedia critiqueTrump investigationpolitical analysis
