1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,920
Speaker 1: It appears that President Trump's lawyers are not waiting for

2
00:00:03,040 --> 00:00:06,680
Speaker 1: Special Counsel Robert Mueller to finish his investigation before making

3
00:00:06,680 --> 00:00:09,360
Speaker 1: a case for Trump. According to The Wall Street Journal,

4
00:00:09,400 --> 00:00:12,360
Speaker 1: Trump's lawyers have met several times with Mueller in recent

5
00:00:12,440 --> 00:00:16,440
Speaker 1: months and actually submitted memos arguing that the president did

6
00:00:16,480 --> 00:00:20,640
Speaker 1: not obstruct justice by firing former FBI Director James Comey.

7
00:00:20,880 --> 00:00:24,439
Speaker 1: And more. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Jeff Kramer,

8
00:00:24,440 --> 00:00:28,200
Speaker 1: who is managing director at the Berkeley Research Group. Jeff

9
00:00:28,480 --> 00:00:32,199
Speaker 1: isn't expected that at an early point in the investigation

10
00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:35,640
Speaker 1: the president's lawyers would be meeting with Muller and submitting

11
00:00:35,720 --> 00:00:40,840
Speaker 1: written membos that actually sound more like legal briefs. It's

12
00:00:40,880 --> 00:00:44,200
Speaker 1: a it's a little unusual to submit the written materials,

13
00:00:44,600 --> 00:00:48,839
Speaker 1: um but I think in an investigation where the subject

14
00:00:49,120 --> 00:00:51,519
Speaker 1: here knows they're being investigated, it's not unusual for their

15
00:00:51,600 --> 00:00:55,160
Speaker 1: lawyers to at least touch base with with the prosecutors

16
00:00:55,160 --> 00:00:59,040
Speaker 1: to try to dissuade them from from bringing charges. So

17
00:00:59,080 --> 00:01:03,279
Speaker 1: that's not odd. The documents and the arguments being sent them,

18
00:01:03,320 --> 00:01:07,240
Speaker 1: some legal in nature, some criticizing potential witnesses, that's a

19
00:01:07,240 --> 00:01:10,559
Speaker 1: bit strange. Let's talk about one of the legal ones,

20
00:01:10,640 --> 00:01:13,800
Speaker 1: which laid out in June, a case that the president

21
00:01:13,880 --> 00:01:16,920
Speaker 1: has the inherent authority under the Constitution to hire and

22
00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:20,040
Speaker 1: fire he's he see fit and so therefore he didn't

23
00:01:20,040 --> 00:01:23,319
Speaker 1: obstruct justice when he hired Call me, tell me what

24
00:01:23,440 --> 00:01:27,880
Speaker 1: your take on that argument is. Um, we're really twofold wanted.

25
00:01:27,959 --> 00:01:31,200
Speaker 1: It's giving the special prosecutor kind of a preview of

26
00:01:31,680 --> 00:01:34,920
Speaker 1: illegal arguments coming their way. Not that it's it's too shocking.

27
00:01:34,920 --> 00:01:37,480
Speaker 1: That was not really an epiphany, I imagine for the

28
00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:40,560
Speaker 1: special counsel to know that this argument is out there. Um,

29
00:01:40,640 --> 00:01:44,600
Speaker 1: but its merits at first blush. You think it might

30
00:01:44,680 --> 00:01:48,120
Speaker 1: have something because the FBI director does work for the president,

31
00:01:48,160 --> 00:01:52,200
Speaker 1: and logic would dictate the president can then fire Himmer

32
00:01:52,320 --> 00:01:56,160
Speaker 1: or whenever he sees fit. The rub here is um.

33
00:01:56,320 --> 00:01:58,440
Speaker 1: There certainly would be examples, and we can come up

34
00:01:58,440 --> 00:02:00,840
Speaker 1: with some where we might talk at that and say, well,

35
00:02:00,880 --> 00:02:03,360
Speaker 1: maybe the president can't do that. For instance, if we

36
00:02:03,400 --> 00:02:06,360
Speaker 1: set up the scenario where someone gave the president two

37
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:09,120
Speaker 1: million dollars to fire the FBI director, I think we

38
00:02:09,200 --> 00:02:13,000
Speaker 1: all say that's improper. If the president tomorrow decided to

39
00:02:13,120 --> 00:02:16,880
Speaker 1: fire every woman employee in the federal government because their

40
00:02:16,919 --> 00:02:19,560
Speaker 1: female we would all say, well, that's a problem. So

41
00:02:19,600 --> 00:02:22,520
Speaker 1: there's certainly are instances and obstruction of justice might fit

42
00:02:22,600 --> 00:02:25,320
Speaker 1: under that same rubric, where it while he may have

43
00:02:25,360 --> 00:02:28,840
Speaker 1: the power to fire the FBI director in some situations,

44
00:02:28,840 --> 00:02:32,080
Speaker 1: it could cause criminal problems. And I want to go

45
00:02:32,240 --> 00:02:36,880
Speaker 1: to UH extroy by Politico that since earlier this summer,

46
00:02:37,040 --> 00:02:39,640
Speaker 1: Mueller's team has been working with New York Attorney General

47
00:02:39,760 --> 00:02:43,440
Speaker 1: Eric Schneiderman's office, which for months has been investigating the

48
00:02:43,480 --> 00:02:47,600
Speaker 1: real estate dealings of and possible money laundering by former

49
00:02:48,080 --> 00:02:53,400
Speaker 1: Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort. Tell us what this shows

50
00:02:53,440 --> 00:03:00,200
Speaker 1: about Mueller's strategy and how he is thinking ahead. Hey, yeah,

51
00:03:00,200 --> 00:03:03,960
Speaker 1: it's an interesting one. And there's certain attorney generals UH

52
00:03:04,160 --> 00:03:06,320
Speaker 1: in the US that are very active, and the New

53
00:03:06,400 --> 00:03:08,760
Speaker 1: York Attorney General is certainly one of them. What it

54
00:03:08,840 --> 00:03:11,720
Speaker 1: could do, and this is just reading tea leaves, but

55
00:03:11,800 --> 00:03:14,560
Speaker 1: it takes the issue of a presidential pardon out of play.

56
00:03:15,160 --> 00:03:18,440
Speaker 1: We just saw the pardon happen UH recently in Arizona.

57
00:03:19,000 --> 00:03:22,400
Speaker 1: If a state attorney general or a state prosecutor brings

58
00:03:22,480 --> 00:03:25,040
Speaker 1: charges against the person, the president of United States cannot

59
00:03:25,120 --> 00:03:28,880
Speaker 1: pardon that individual. The president can pardon someone who is

60
00:03:28,919 --> 00:03:32,960
Speaker 1: accused or convicted of crimes against the United States. Not

61
00:03:33,160 --> 00:03:34,880
Speaker 1: so when it's the people of the state of New

62
00:03:34,960 --> 00:03:38,840
Speaker 1: York versus fill in the blank. The presidential pardon stops

63
00:03:38,880 --> 00:03:41,840
Speaker 1: at the at the door of New York State. It

64
00:03:41,880 --> 00:03:44,600
Speaker 1: seems like Mueller is working this is sort of like

65
00:03:44,640 --> 00:03:46,800
Speaker 1: a mob case. I mean, he's trying to get people

66
00:03:46,840 --> 00:03:49,320
Speaker 1: to flip. He's trying to make sure that there is

67
00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:53,040
Speaker 1: pressure on these people, and he has some prosecutors from

68
00:03:53,240 --> 00:03:56,520
Speaker 1: prosecutors now in his office who are known for that.

69
00:03:57,760 --> 00:04:00,720
Speaker 1: I think you're spot on. I think when not just

70
00:04:00,840 --> 00:04:03,000
Speaker 1: he would put together this case, but at any prosecutor

71
00:04:03,360 --> 00:04:06,120
Speaker 1: who would put together a case like this. You're looking

72
00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:08,360
Speaker 1: for documents if you can find them. You're looking for

73
00:04:08,400 --> 00:04:12,360
Speaker 1: any information, but inside information. People who are there are

74
00:04:12,440 --> 00:04:15,440
Speaker 1: critical to present these kind of cases to a jury.

75
00:04:15,440 --> 00:04:17,840
Speaker 1: And that's true and organized crime cases. It is true

76
00:04:17,839 --> 00:04:20,839
Speaker 1: in white collar cases, gang cases, etcetera. When you go

77
00:04:20,960 --> 00:04:23,240
Speaker 1: for the weakest link and you move yourself up, so

78
00:04:23,320 --> 00:04:27,279
Speaker 1: you may start prosecuting a low level person for something

79
00:04:27,320 --> 00:04:30,560
Speaker 1: maybe unrelated to the ultimate target, but then just keep

80
00:04:30,600 --> 00:04:33,640
Speaker 1: moving up and up, and two or three steps later Uh,

81
00:04:33,800 --> 00:04:37,279
Speaker 1: you might be close to getting a sailing witness at

82
00:04:37,279 --> 00:04:39,640
Speaker 1: the at the trial of the main subject. And as

83
00:04:39,640 --> 00:04:43,440
Speaker 1: you say, that's very common in a myriad of criminal cases,

84
00:04:43,480 --> 00:04:46,920
Speaker 1: certainly organized crime as one of them. Just about thirty

85
00:04:46,960 --> 00:04:50,120
Speaker 1: seconds left. But I wanted to get your reaction because

86
00:04:50,400 --> 00:04:54,479
Speaker 1: I found there was a memo submitted outlining why James Comey,

87
00:04:54,600 --> 00:04:58,480
Speaker 1: according to the Wall Street Journal, would make an unsuitable witness.

88
00:04:58,600 --> 00:05:02,400
Speaker 1: And to me, why admit something like that when Mueller knows,

89
00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:04,840
Speaker 1: call me, well, he worked with him, and it certainly

90
00:05:04,880 --> 00:05:07,960
Speaker 1: is something he's going to judge himself. It is. But

91
00:05:08,000 --> 00:05:11,799
Speaker 1: again that's not for Mueller's eyes. Uh, that's for the public,

92
00:05:12,200 --> 00:05:15,600
Speaker 1: and that's also to let the prosecutors know. But these

93
00:05:15,600 --> 00:05:17,800
Speaker 1: are the arguments that are coming your way. So if

94
00:05:17,839 --> 00:05:21,039
Speaker 1: you go there, you're gonna expect some some pushback. So

95
00:05:21,160 --> 00:05:24,080
Speaker 1: just briefly, I think it's somewhat ironic that when it

96
00:05:24,080 --> 00:05:25,880
Speaker 1: comes on to it, a New York City real estate

97
00:05:25,920 --> 00:05:30,040
Speaker 1: developers criticizing the integrity of James Comey. Um, I don't

98
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:33,159
Speaker 1: think that's going to go very far in Director Mueller's eyes,

99
00:05:33,279 --> 00:05:36,279
Speaker 1: And equally important, I don't think it's going to carry

100
00:05:36,360 --> 00:05:38,560
Speaker 1: much weight if this thing ever goes beyond a special

101
00:05:38,560 --> 00:05:40,919
Speaker 1: prosecutor to a try or effect, be it a judge

102
00:05:41,080 --> 00:05:43,800
Speaker 1: or jury, it's always great to have you on. Jeff.

103
00:05:44,120 --> 00:05:47,799
Speaker 1: That's Jeff Kramer. He's managing director at the Berkeley Research Group.

104
00:05:47,839 --> 00:05:49,440
Speaker 1: Have a great long weekend.