Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg p m L Podcast. I'm pim Fox.
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa Abramowitz. Each day we
Speaker 1: bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money, whether you're at the grocery store
Speaker 1: or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg p m L
Speaker 1: Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot com. For
Speaker 1: more on this breaking news about the Special Counsel Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller and his mother and his investigation, I want to
Speaker 1: bring in a one of the authors of this story,
Speaker 1: and congratulations to you, Christian Bertelson. Thanks very much for
Speaker 1: being here. Much appreciate it. Why don't you just lay
Speaker 1: out for people who all they've gotten on the headlines,
Speaker 1: just get set, you know, set us up and and
Speaker 1: go for it. Sure so. UH. The Special Counsel who
Speaker 1: was appointed just a little over two months ago, Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller UH to handle the investigation into Russian interference in
Speaker 1: last year's presidential election, has included as part of his
Speaker 1: probe a number of business transactions involving Russian financing of
Speaker 1: Trump developments UH, the Trump Miss Universe pageant that was
Speaker 1: held in Moscow in UH and as well as an
Speaker 1: earlier investigation that was started by federal prosecutors in New
Speaker 1: York into Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and and
Speaker 1: Ukrainian transactions that he engaged in two thousand eight. So, Christian,
Speaker 1: let's talk about how this differs from what we've known
Speaker 1: so far in this scoop that just broke by yourself
Speaker 1: and Greg Farrell talking about how the U s. Special
Speaker 1: Council is investigating possible ties between Trump's campaign and Russia.
Speaker 1: It including some of these financial ties that we know
Speaker 1: to be long standing between the Trump organization and a
Speaker 1: variety of different Russia and interest Uh. We also know
Speaker 1: that President Trump did talk with the New York Times
Speaker 1: in a wide ranging interviewer he said any look at
Speaker 1: financial ties would be off limits. So it's not off limits.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's front and center. What do we know
Speaker 1: about how this changes the tenor of the overall investigation.
Speaker 1: I don't know that it changes the tenor, but right,
Speaker 1: I mean, the the initial mandate for the investigation was
Speaker 1: to look into Russian interference in the election. Um and
Speaker 1: that included you know the hack of the d n C. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know whether the Trump campaign coordinated in any way
Speaker 1: with Russia to get damaging information about Hillary Clinton, that
Speaker 1: kind of thing. UM. So this look at the financial
Speaker 1: transactions and the sort of you know, longstanding business ties
Speaker 1: between Trump and Russians, UM is a bit different. You know.
Speaker 1: I couldn't say whether it actually goes beyond the mandate
Speaker 1: uh and the Special Council or from the DOJ, but it, uh,
Speaker 1: it does seem to go in an area that Trump
Speaker 1: warned in that New York Times interview that he considered
Speaker 1: sort of beyond the bounds of our scope of the investigation.
Speaker 1: All Right, I'm gonna try to connect two pieces of
Speaker 1: information that you have been able to determine our true Uh.
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions, attorney current Attorney General, had asked for the
Speaker 1: resignations of forty six u S attorneys. One of those
Speaker 1: U S attorneys happened to be from the Southern District
Speaker 1: of the County of New York. Can you tell us
Speaker 1: about preparre his office and I believe some of his
Speaker 1: colleagues who are now assisting in this investigation, and why
Speaker 1: that's relevant. Uh. There there's never been any sort of
Speaker 1: full explanation of why Barrara was fired. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: Barrara was fired along with all the other remaining OBA
Speaker 1: was he considered to be an excellent prosecutor. He had
Speaker 1: an incredible reputation and still does. Um. You know. The
Speaker 1: the thing that is unusual about Barras firing, the firing
Speaker 1: of U S attorneys is routine any time an administration
Speaker 1: changed his hands, um, and all the U attorneys who
Speaker 1: were fired were Obama administration of pointees. The thing that
Speaker 1: makes barras firing unusual was that he met with Trump
Speaker 1: after Trump was elected, but before the administration began, and
Speaker 1: according to Barrara's account, he was told he was welcome
Speaker 1: to stay. Uh So, so there's always been a question
Speaker 1: about why Barrara was included in the mass firing with
Speaker 1: the others after he had been given the assurance of
Speaker 1: Trump that he would be allowed to remain in office.
Speaker 1: So could it be a sort of prevention of justice
Speaker 1: being done? Kind of it? Could that be sort of
Speaker 1: part of the probe that you're hearing about, or obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice? Or is this just sort of another sort
Speaker 1: of whiff of smoke to to add to you can't
Speaker 1: you can't know, you know, because Berrara himself has given
Speaker 1: in a very detailed accounting in public of his firing,
Speaker 1: and even Berrara doesn't know. You know, he received a
Speaker 1: call from the White House the day before he was fired.
Speaker 1: He did not return the call because he felt it
Speaker 1: was inappropriate and there are existing Justice part regulations that
Speaker 1: that prohibit contact between U. S. Attorneys and the White House,
Speaker 1: So he he didn't have the conversation, and he didn't
Speaker 1: know Andrew Goldstein. Sorry, just because you've got to connect
Speaker 1: who is he and why, because Lisa knows is has
Speaker 1: a legal mind. Andrew Goldstein was a I believe he
Speaker 1: was a deputy chief in the U. S. Attorney's Office
Speaker 1: and the head of the public corruption a unit in
Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York. And he left his
Speaker 1: position there, I want to say, two weeks ago, uh,
Speaker 1: to move down to Washington to join Mueller's investigative team.
Speaker 1: So I just want to note that equity markets do
Speaker 1: seem to be down on this news. They did, uh.
Speaker 1: The SMP five hundred did drop subsequent to this story
Speaker 1: hitting the wire. So it does seem like this just
Speaker 1: injects another note of uncertainty, UH, to the ongoing political intrigue.
Speaker 1: I want to talk a little bit more about the
Speaker 1: financial ties that Muller's team is looking into. In particular,
Speaker 1: you highlight, for example, a Trump Soho hotel condominium development,
Speaker 1: um and where got it's ten million dollar cash and
Speaker 1: fusion that was from somewhere in Russia or believed to be.
Speaker 1: As well as Miss Universe pageant where a prominent Moscow
Speaker 1: developer paid twenty million dollars to bring the beauty spectacle
Speaker 1: to that country. How does this relate to President Trump's
Speaker 1: rise to power in the US. I would think, well,
Speaker 1: you know, Russian, Eastern European capital in general was a
Speaker 1: source of development for various Trump projects, and I think
Speaker 1: that to the extent Mueller is investigating that. Uh, he's
Speaker 1: trying to determine the origins of the relationship between Trump
Speaker 1: and various you know, sources of capital in Eastern Europe. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, as to Trump Soho. Uh, the money that
Speaker 1: came that helped build Trump Soho came from a development
Speaker 1: group called the bay Rock Group and according to a
Speaker 1: lawsuit filed against bay Rock by its former finance director,
Speaker 1: bay Rock received some of its money from Russia and Kazakhstan.
Speaker 1: This is a Bloomberg Market time pim Fox, my colleague
Speaker 1: and co host a Lisa Abramwitz. Our guest is a
Speaker 1: Christian Burtleson. He is a Bloomberg reporter who, along with
Speaker 1: Greg Farrell, have broken a story about the Special Council
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller, who is expanding his probe into a president
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's business transactions. UM, I wonder if you could
Speaker 1: just reset quickly for people that there's a lot of
Speaker 1: pieces to all of this, right, I mean, you know
Speaker 1: you the threads. Can you just sort of condense it
Speaker 1: for people so that they understand exactly why this is important.
Speaker 1: The the investigation being conducted by the Special Council is
Speaker 1: into Russian interference in the presidential election last year, but
Speaker 1: the the investigation is also looking at Trump's longstanding business
Speaker 1: size too various Eastern European UH sources of capital for
Speaker 1: his developments UH. The The president told The New York
Speaker 1: Times in an interview yesterday that he viewed any investigation
Speaker 1: into his business dealings as being sort of beyond the
Speaker 1: bounds of what the point was intended for. I want
Speaker 1: to bring an Awl Hunt. He's a Bloomberg View calumnist
Speaker 1: who's been following all of the variety of different political
Speaker 1: intrigue that we've been experiencing over the past few months.
Speaker 1: And al do you think that this new disclosure of
Speaker 1: the new angle of the special prosecutors investigation changes the
Speaker 1: tenor of the discussion at all around Russia. No, it
Speaker 1: really doesn't, because, um the whole question all along, Mueller's
Speaker 1: mandate was always quite broad, and it was interference with
Speaker 1: the election and the charge that somehow Trump might be
Speaker 1: beholden to the Russians, they might have leverage. Only he
Speaker 1: goes back to his business dealings. So Mueller had to
Speaker 1: investigate this, or we're special cant I mean, I'm old
Speaker 1: 've been here when the Nixon special counsel was here.
Speaker 1: Special counsel like this or special prosecutors as as existed before,
Speaker 1: are given a broad mandate and they have to see
Speaker 1: what they can they can find. When they were investigating Nixon,
Speaker 1: they didn't start having any idea that there was illegal
Speaker 1: use of the Internal Revenue Service, for instance, when they
Speaker 1: were investigating Clinton, didn't have any idea that we were
Speaker 1: talking about sex in the Oval office. I don't think
Speaker 1: that Bob Mueller will be will go off in a
Speaker 1: wild chase the way Kim Starr did. But central to
Speaker 1: this investigation is Trump's relationship with the Russians, and central
Speaker 1: to that is whether the Russians money laundered through Trump
Speaker 1: and whether they bailed him out, and whether in any
Speaker 1: way he is indebted to them, uh and has not
Speaker 1: told the truth about it or has not or is
Speaker 1: not revealed in his tax returns. That's something that a
Speaker 1: special counsel would be Darrell looked if he didn't investigate.
Speaker 1: You know, I have to say, this raises a real
Speaker 1: fuzzy ground, which is, yes, we know that President Trump
Speaker 1: has been involved with a variety of different Russians and
Speaker 1: his financial dealings. At what point does that mean he's
Speaker 1: beholden to them versus just has a very good relationship.
Speaker 1: That's not That's not fuzzy. That's what the Special count
Speaker 1: to investigates. If it's just a normal business transaction, then
Speaker 1: there's no problem with it. Uh. If in fact, you
Speaker 1: know there's there's something deeper than that, than that's what
Speaker 1: Bob Mueller will fund. I don't think at all what's
Speaker 1: the difference between a normal financial relationship and an abnormal
Speaker 1: one if you're basically cloaking it. I mean, like, I
Speaker 1: just don't understand the distinction that there's a Special Council
Speaker 1: will even draw there, you know what I mean? Well, no,
Speaker 1: I don't, because I think the distinction is going to
Speaker 1: be did the Russians somehow? And I don't know the
Speaker 1: answer this least, but I think this is quite clear
Speaker 1: and quite obvious that the Special Council has to look
Speaker 1: in this. The question is in some way with the
Speaker 1: Russians giving aid to Trump's organization and the Trump bailing
Speaker 1: him out in a way that he is indebted to them.
Speaker 1: They have leverage over him, they have knowledge about him
Speaker 1: that he doesn't want out. I don't know that's the case,
Speaker 1: but that's the charge, and that's a charge that has
Speaker 1: been suggested by serious people. Bob Muller will find out
Speaker 1: if it's true or not. If it's just a normal
Speaker 1: business transaction, then then there's then there's no problem. There's
Speaker 1: all kinds of reasons to wonder, however, among them being
Speaker 1: that Trump and his people continue to lie about this.
Speaker 1: So if you're lying about it, what are you trying
Speaker 1: to hide? I don't know. That's what Bob Muller will
Speaker 1: find out. Al Hunt, I gotta love you because you
Speaker 1: know you're you're so last century. You actually believe you
Speaker 1: know you you you know, until proven you are, Uh,
Speaker 1: you need the detail correct? Well do you want? No?
Speaker 1: But this is where I'm going with this, and I
Speaker 1: want I want Christian to come in on this because
Speaker 1: the cycle and information, the gathering that has been included
Speaker 1: in all of this includes online revelations, emails about the
Speaker 1: president's son, emails from the President's son, um, conversations about
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions, the attorney general to the New York Times.
Speaker 1: All of these things, people draw their own conclusions. You
Speaker 1: know that the Twitter sphere, of the blogger sphere, they live. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is a feeding frenzy for this and it's become
Speaker 1: part of it in your investigation. How important will the
Speaker 1: email trail and the money trail be in figuring this
Speaker 1: all out? You know, I'm not a lawyer, and I
Speaker 1: really I probably not qualified to a point on that,
Speaker 1: but I you know, I think, uh, in a large
Speaker 1: part it will explain, as I said, at least the
Speaker 1: origins of the relationships um, and flowing from that, you
Speaker 1: might get some understanding of sort of why Trump and
Speaker 1: Russia appeared to have such sort of close interactions over
Speaker 1: the course of his campaign. You know, I have to wonder,
Speaker 1: given the fact that we did see markets moved down,
Speaker 1: and that both of you are saying, this isn't really
Speaker 1: materially change uh the narrative going forward, why our markets
Speaker 1: reacting at all? I mean until to a large degree
Speaker 1: that they kind of haven't reacted all that much. But
Speaker 1: we are going to be speaking with someone up Mark Grant,
Speaker 1: coming up from hill Top Advisors, who said that, you know,
Speaker 1: people are losing faith that we are going to get
Speaker 1: anything done. I mean, Christian, do you hear from people,
Speaker 1: uh that just the ongoing tome of information that keeps
Speaker 1: coming out is dampening any hopes, uh for for anything
Speaker 1: else to sort of gain attention. I will say just
Speaker 1: you know, in talks with people, I don't know about
Speaker 1: the financial market implications of it, but I will say
Speaker 1: that the people I've talked to do feel significant concerned
Speaker 1: that if Mueller is not allowed to complete his work, uh,
Speaker 1: that where we are as a country is a very
Speaker 1: troubling place. Um. You know, there's a lot of hope
Speaker 1: that you know, he will be allowed to complete his investigation,
Speaker 1: that we will get some clarity on what happened in
Speaker 1: uh and if that doesn't happen, if he's sort of
Speaker 1: fired or stopped or something that, uh, you know, we
Speaker 1: are in a dark place in terms of the rule
Speaker 1: of law. Al hunt, are we already there? Oh? I
Speaker 1: agree with every hand. Christian just said, Um, I suspect
Speaker 1: that Trump really is thinking about firing Muller, and I
Speaker 1: think that we then become whatever you want to call it,
Speaker 1: Banana Republic, Russia. The rule of law doesn't matter. And
Speaker 1: that's the case, and that then the key will be
Speaker 1: whether whether Congression Republicans will stand up and say this
Speaker 1: is not acceptable. That's what they did in seventy three
Speaker 1: when Nixon fired Archie Cox. That's what we have to
Speaker 1: do now. But I think the predicate that Trump was
Speaker 1: trying to say yesterday but somehow he either wants to
Speaker 1: fire Mueller or he wants, uh, somehow the four sessions
Speaker 1: out and the point of Attorney general will do it.
Speaker 1: I think if he gets away with that, this country
Speaker 1: is in terrible, terrible trouble. And why does he want
Speaker 1: to do that? You know, the Wall Street General had
Speaker 1: a very good trip the other day. They said, look,
Speaker 1: there's a simple answer, Mr Trump, release everything. You know,
Speaker 1: if he would release everything, then you know we we
Speaker 1: we won't have a problem. There's a reason perhaps he
Speaker 1: won't release everything. Well. Al when you talk to people
Speaker 1: on the Hill, do you get the sense that among
Speaker 1: Republicans there's a growing and of concern about h the
Speaker 1: US becoming up an inn a republic and holding President
Speaker 1: Trump's feet to the fire. I think they're scared stiff
Speaker 1: because they're caught in the terrible costs. Far least the
Speaker 1: number one that base that Trump based now it's it's
Speaker 1: smaller than it was. It's the ministe. She's lost support,
Speaker 1: there's no question in that. But the fervor of that
Speaker 1: base still is there, and that's a key part of
Speaker 1: the Republican constituency. On the other hand, he is losing
Speaker 1: all sorts of independent and people who were sanxious if
Speaker 1: you will, who didn't like Hillary and held their dose
Speaker 1: and voted for Trump. Uh. And secondly, a number there
Speaker 1: are a number of these Republicans are oh my god,
Speaker 1: what what what's going on? Is? Uh? Were there? Are
Speaker 1: there really some very worrisome things. They were bothered, for instance,
Speaker 1: by his second meeting with Putin that he didn't tell
Speaker 1: anyone about. They were bothered by the Donnie Junior look.
Speaker 1: Donnie Junior and Paul Manaford and Jared Kushner. I've covered
Speaker 1: campaigns for forty years. A month before the convention, time
Speaker 1: is precious. The Missouri state chairman, they come in, you
Speaker 1: don't have time to meet him. I'm sorry, We're too busy.
Speaker 1: And to spend that amount of time with with those Russians,
Speaker 1: and the lie about it to begin with, and then
Speaker 1: the lie about the number of people there. What are
Speaker 1: they hiding? Least? And I think Republicans at least some
Speaker 1: of them are asking those questions of themselves at least.
Speaker 1: I want to keep you with us, l and Christian.
Speaker 1: I want to bring in Larry Liebert, national Security team
Speaker 1: editor for bloom Brook News, who is in Washington, d C. Larry,
Speaker 1: I want to pick up on one aspect that I
Speaker 1: was talking about, with the concerned that Republicans have expressed,
Speaker 1: at least behind closed doors, about the second undisclosed meeting
Speaker 1: that President Trump had with Vladimir Putin, President of Russia. UM,
Speaker 1: is there any concern among the security the intel community, UH,
Speaker 1: that right now there is something going on that could
Speaker 1: potentially jeopardize the national security of our country? Or is
Speaker 1: this mostly uh, you know the details and still having
Speaker 1: to do with the campaign. Well in the intel community's
Speaker 1: concern about anything they don't know about. And really, UH,
Speaker 1: the question is what did they talk about in that meeting,
Speaker 1: which the President said was very brief, others had said
Speaker 1: was a full hour discussion. UH? What do they talk
Speaker 1: about in terms of lifting sanctions and policy? What do
Speaker 1: they talk about, perhaps in regard to the current investigations
Speaker 1: are going on? UH? And and the fact that they
Speaker 1: don't know is what trouble From the fact that there
Speaker 1: were no no takers, not even Sexuary Tillerson, who was
Speaker 1: there for the meeting earlier in the day, UH was
Speaker 1: around to UH make any record of what was said.
Speaker 1: So that just that worries. But this president is not
Speaker 1: one to follow the diplomatic rules, and UH, I guess
Speaker 1: they're trying to adjust to that. Christian, I know you've
Speaker 1: got something to add to this, please, Well, you know
Speaker 1: what's been interesting in the last two weeks amid you know,
Speaker 1: first the revelations about the meeting between UH Donald Jr.
Speaker 1: In his office with various Russian and Eastern Europeans UH
Speaker 1: prior to the election, as well as Trump's new explanation
Speaker 1: of his UH. You know UH side sideline meeting with
Speaker 1: Putin at the G twenty dinner. UH. The the continued
Speaker 1: explanation is that they were talking about this issue of
Speaker 1: Russian adoptions, UH, which you know only partially explains what
Speaker 1: the adoption issue is. UH. The adoption issue has to
Speaker 1: do with something called the Magnetsky Act, which was passed
Speaker 1: by Congress to UH punish human rights abusers in Russia
Speaker 1: with severe financial sanctions. UH. And Putin was extremely unhappy
Speaker 1: about the passage of the Magnetski Act, and in a
Speaker 1: retaliatory move, he banned adoption of Russian children by Americans. UH. So, so, yes,
Speaker 1: it's about adoptions, but actually it's about financial sanctions on
Speaker 1: Russians UH. And and that is sort of the real
Speaker 1: substance of what's been discussed at these meetings. So one
Speaker 1: other aspect to the latest political news is the wide
Speaker 1: ranging interview which you mentioned before, that President Trump had
Speaker 1: with the New York Times, and in that he had
Speaker 1: some scathing remarks about Jeff Sessions, his Attorney general, basically
Speaker 1: accusing him saying if he had known that he would
Speaker 1: have recused himself from the Russia issue, he would not
Speaker 1: have appointed him as his Attorney general. Uh, Larry, I
Speaker 1: would love to get your sense of this. We are
Speaker 1: getting news this morning that Attorney General Sessions has no
Speaker 1: intention of resigning. Um. Is there anything that President Trump
Speaker 1: can do at this point to halt this Special Counsel's investigation,
Speaker 1: Bob Mueller's investigation, or change his or would he have
Speaker 1: any incentive to really fire Attorney General Sessions as a
Speaker 1: result of some of his displeasure around this investigation. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, Uh, you know this is the innique
Speaker 1: president one and one of the folks officials we talked
Speaker 1: to said, it's normal for there to be some strikes
Speaker 1: between a president and his Justice department. Uh, it's not
Speaker 1: normal for the president to air at all for the nation. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that's just what Trump does. But we we don't hear,
Speaker 1: and I suspect the White House will tell us sometimes.
Speaker 1: Today we don't hear that the president wants uh Sessions
Speaker 1: to quit or is about to fire him. Uh. And
Speaker 1: Sessions chose to take it that way, basically saying I
Speaker 1: asked if he could serve with with the President's questions
Speaker 1: about him. He said, he said, we are serving. We're
Speaker 1: serving right now and uh, and we intend to continue
Speaker 1: to and Uh, I'm not sure that the presidents and
Speaker 1: Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation, would gain
Speaker 1: much for firing Sessions. In fact, he'd uh inheritu Rosestine,
Speaker 1: the deputy Attorney general who who Trump also despairs that,
Speaker 1: Well he's from Baltimore, and how many Republicans are from Baltimore?
Speaker 1: So what did he gain there? Uh? So I respected Sessions.
Speaker 1: UH will labor on uh and uh and Trump will Uh.
Speaker 1: We got we gotta leave it there, Larry, you back
Speaker 1: to work. We got more work to do. We've got
Speaker 1: more to bring you to. Larry Liebert, he's our National
Speaker 1: Security team editor for Bloomberg Plus. I want to thank
Speaker 1: Christian burtleson great reporting and Al Hunt, Bloomberg View contributor
Speaker 1: and veteran d C watcher. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to interviews at Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whatever podcast platform
Speaker 1: you prefer. I'm pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at pim Fox.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Lisa abramowits one before the podcast.
Speaker 1: You can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio