Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com Slash podcasts. The Washington Post
Speaker 1: and New York Times have reported that President Trump wanted
Speaker 1: to fire Robert Muller in June, something that Democratic Senator
Speaker 1: Richard Bloomhal called stunning. This report shows there's now a
Speaker 1: credible case of stution of justice. But even if Mueller
Speaker 1: has an obstruction case, Bloomberg News is now reporting that
Speaker 1: he may put any charges on hold as he finishes
Speaker 1: other key parts of his probe indo Russian election meddling.
Speaker 1: Kevin White Law, Bloomberg News Deputy Managing editor, stops in
Speaker 1: for more on this story in our Bloomberg studios in
Speaker 1: Washington and Kevin, this was a nice scoop by our team.
Speaker 1: What does it say, Well, that's exactly right. We do
Speaker 1: know that. Um, you know, we're Muller's in the final
Speaker 1: stages of the obstruction part of his probe. He's got
Speaker 1: a couple of key outstanding interviews um that he's uh,
Speaker 1: that that he might want to pursue. We understand his
Speaker 1: negotiations with President Trump's lawyers, but interview with the president. Um,
Speaker 1: there's another witness to a number of key events that
Speaker 1: Mueller's studying who has yet to be interviewed as far
Speaker 1: as we know, and that's Donald Trump Jr. Uh. Those
Speaker 1: are two high profile interviews. But sort of the sequencing
Speaker 1: of how you sort of hold those interviews and close
Speaker 1: out a portion of this probe um is very is
Speaker 1: a very complicated decision for him, given that there's other
Speaker 1: aspects of the probe that are going to take weeks
Speaker 1: or months to to complete. And so there's a growing
Speaker 1: sense and growing belief that there's a chance Muller could
Speaker 1: even if he decides to essentially conduct the interviews and
Speaker 1: effectively wrap up the probe, he may essentially keep his
Speaker 1: findings withhold his findings for a while while he then
Speaker 1: turns its attention to other elements of the probe, and
Speaker 1: and and and and goes from there. Bloomberg News is
Speaker 1: reporting that also during into this is that witnesses may
Speaker 1: become less cooperative in other parts of the probe, and
Speaker 1: the president might make a move if he if if
Speaker 1: that comes out about about obstruction to shut it down,
Speaker 1: well that's right. You have the problem where you um,
Speaker 1: if to the degree that Mueller makes charges, then that
Speaker 1: potentially provokes one set of conflicts. If he effectively clears
Speaker 1: um anybody on this side of it, then that's suddenly
Speaker 1: they canna say, hey, it's time to wrap up, let's go.
Speaker 1: And and we know, we know for various reasons, he's
Speaker 1: got weeks and months of work on a number of
Speaker 1: different areas in the probe, so um he's got all
Speaker 1: of that hanging over his head, along with obviously the
Speaker 1: sort of more existential threat of the President deciding to
Speaker 1: try to find a way to to simply fire him
Speaker 1: if he gets too close. So there are a number
Speaker 1: of of those calculations that facts or in. We do know.
Speaker 1: There are several key episodes that that Muller and his
Speaker 1: team are focusing on for just sort of trying to
Speaker 1: figure out whether there was indeed any effort to obst justice,
Speaker 1: and those include a couple of key meetings. One was
Speaker 1: discussed the decision to fire uh FBI director James call
Speaker 1: me uh The other was a discussion aboard Air Force
Speaker 1: one over the UH response to reports about a meeting
Speaker 1: organized at Trump Tower that included Trump Junior and Jared Kushner,
Speaker 1: the president's son in law. So walk us through the
Speaker 1: timing on all of this, UH, keeping in mind that
Speaker 1: there's something happening, UH this November. What is it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: some kind of election. Yeah, I mean, we don't really
Speaker 1: have a lot of of information on the timing. UM.
Speaker 1: Mueller doesn't have a deadline per se, other than maybe
Speaker 1: a political one. So he's made it clear through his
Speaker 1: methodical approach so far that he's going to take the
Speaker 1: investigation wherever he thinks it needs to go. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, I don't think he's looking for ways
Speaker 1: to to stretch it out. So UM, he's clearly feeling
Speaker 1: pressure to keep moving. We've seen a succession of indictments
Speaker 1: and plea deals, including an indictment of thirteen Russians for
Speaker 1: social media activity during the election. We are expecting at
Speaker 1: some point there to be another set of indictments of
Speaker 1: another indictment of a set of Russians for hacking. We
Speaker 1: haven't seen that yet, We're we have reason to believe
Speaker 1: that that's in the works. UM. And so that's one
Speaker 1: of the next things we're looking for that could effectively
Speaker 1: come at any time. And there's still other aspects of
Speaker 1: the probe that we've had a lot less visibility into,
Speaker 1: including questions of how deep, if at all, uh MALLA
Speaker 1: really is going into the finances of either the President
Speaker 1: Trump Org or Jared Kushner's company. So there's a lot
Speaker 1: of questions we still don't know. Even as we we
Speaker 1: we have some some new insight into some of the
Speaker 1: decision making and uh processes that are that are going
Speaker 1: on right now. So Maller has to prove corrupt intent
Speaker 1: on Trump's part for the obstruction part of the case,
Speaker 1: if he intends to go after him for obstruction, and
Speaker 1: could he be putting the obstruction case on hold because
Speaker 1: he wants to talk to Trump and history and Trump's
Speaker 1: attorneys have been fighting that tooth and nail. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's interesting the you know, as we understand it,
Speaker 1: Trump's legal team has actually been in negotiations since late
Speaker 1: last year UM negotiations that we're told have actually gone
Speaker 1: on relatively smoothly and constructively. But what's unclear though is
Speaker 1: where the which side the delays on UM there does
Speaker 1: seem to have been a flurry of activity, uh with
Speaker 1: with Mueller that uh as in otherwids, just his investigation continuing.
Speaker 1: So you know, you saw Steve Bannon meet with Mueller
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago. You know, the President is going
Speaker 1: to be essentially the last or one of the last
Speaker 1: interviews that Mueller would want to have when it comes
Speaker 1: to an obstruction case. So he wants to interview absolutely everybody.
Speaker 1: And it feels like there's a couple more alley ways
Speaker 1: and side doors that that Mueller wanted to go down
Speaker 1: before he gets that interview. There is a very good
Speaker 1: question though as to whether or not as to when
Speaker 1: that interview would actually happen, and if if there is
Speaker 1: a delay, Um, you know, a lot of he said,
Speaker 1: she said over over which side might be responsible for it. Also,
Speaker 1: I want to remember that there are these investigations going
Speaker 1: on on the hill. Uh. The House Intelligence Committee investigation
Speaker 1: has obviously kind of you know, broken down to a
Speaker 1: part into a partisan mass. But where does the Senate
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee investigation stand. Well, that's still basically the there's
Speaker 1: two investigations in the Senate. That's the truly sort of
Speaker 1: the most serious of them, the most bipartisan of them.
Speaker 1: That's ongoing. The Judiciary Panel is continuing to look at
Speaker 1: certain aspects with elements and glimpses of bipartisan work, But
Speaker 1: the Senate Intelligence Panel is where you are seeing a
Speaker 1: much fuller effort to try to be bipartisan. Having said that,
Speaker 1: there are disputes over what public hearings might still be
Speaker 1: held before this thing is wrapped up, and that seems
Speaker 1: to be one of the biggest outstanding questions that they
Speaker 1: have as to whether or not that will have a
Speaker 1: bipartisan conclusion to it. But in the meantime, they are
Speaker 1: aiming to release an interim report on election security ahead
Speaker 1: of the mid terms. Uh, that's something that we could
Speaker 1: tell that obviously Mueller was was interested in given the
Speaker 1: indictment of the social media uh, the Russians doing the
Speaker 1: social media attacks. The Senate Intelligence Committee also has a
Speaker 1: has a lot of interest in this topic. So that's
Speaker 1: a report we could see in the coming days or weeks. Kevin,
Speaker 1: it seems as if Mueller is going into different areas.
Speaker 1: Is that because we're just learning about those areas or
Speaker 1: he is actually expanding the investigation. That's a very very
Speaker 1: good question, and and um, you know, I think it's
Speaker 1: probably a little bit of both. This is a this
Speaker 1: is investigations very complex, and because the Mueller team is
Speaker 1: basically as tight as basically any of these organisms as
Speaker 1: any probe like this has ever been, leaks are very
Speaker 1: selective and tend to come, um in some cases from
Speaker 1: from the witnesses, and some of those might be self
Speaker 1: serving or or or carrying out a grudge or whatever,
Speaker 1: and others are legitimately real, real information. So sorting through
Speaker 1: what's real what's not is a challenge. Sorting through what's
Speaker 1: new and what's not as a challenge. Um, But they're
Speaker 1: du seemed to be some areas that have come to
Speaker 1: light in recent weeks or months that do seem to
Speaker 1: be genuinely new to the probe. And I think everyone's
Speaker 1: still trying to figure out exactly what this means and
Speaker 1: how seriously Muller's taking these things. I mean, remember, i'd
Speaker 1: caution just because he asked to witness about a particular
Speaker 1: topic doesn't mean he's fully investigating that topic. These are
Speaker 1: hours and hours of interviews he's doing with each witness,
Speaker 1: For he seems like a serious guy. Well that's right,
Speaker 1: but he's gonna be asking a lot of questions, and
Speaker 1: some of the things are the ones he's gonna be targeting,
Speaker 1: and others are just gonna be testing the waters. And
Speaker 1: it's very hard to start through all of that. From
Speaker 1: from the outside. Kevin Whitelaw Bloomberg News Deputy Managing Editors,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Foreign nations and US customers harmed by President Trump.
Speaker 1: Steel and aluminum terrorist face a slow legal fight challenging
Speaker 1: the tariffs, and the role of US courts in the
Speaker 1: global dispute is likely to be limited. Joining me is
Speaker 1: Matt Gold, adjunct Professor of law Fordham University and former
Speaker 1: Deputy Assistant US Trade Representsitive. Matt, countries can complain to
Speaker 1: the World Trade Organization, but that is less like litigation
Speaker 1: and more like a dispute settlement process. Explain the process.
Speaker 1: If a foreign country claims against makes a claim against
Speaker 1: the US, there sure be glad to um the process.
Speaker 1: That's three basic stages. The first stage is what's known
Speaker 1: as consultations. It's like an opportunity to settle the case
Speaker 1: before your info litigation itself. The parties are required to
Speaker 1: engage in consultations. But if consultations are going nowhere within
Speaker 1: a relatively short period of time, the countries that brought
Speaker 1: the case can call them to an end and move
Speaker 1: on to the next stage. UM. The next stage is
Speaker 1: a panel UM, a three member panel UH, which is
Speaker 1: essentially litigating before three judge court. The panelists are experts,
Speaker 1: they're from countries that are not HUM, that don't have
Speaker 1: an interest in the dispute UM and that litigation can
Speaker 1: take one to two years UM or a little bit
Speaker 1: more or less depending on the complexity of the case.
Speaker 1: And the third stage is appealing the panel decision to
Speaker 1: the W two appellate Body, which for a major case
Speaker 1: like this is almost a certainty. So in the end,
Speaker 1: the w t O can tell a country to stop
Speaker 1: violating the rules it. But does it have any real
Speaker 1: power or is it world perception at work? Oh? No,
Speaker 1: it has quite real power. It's the one international court
Speaker 1: that has real power to enforce international law, the law
Speaker 1: that imparts rights and obligations to government UM. The power
Speaker 1: it has is to authorize retaliation UM, to authorize the
Speaker 1: country UH if if other countries demonstrate, for example, the
Speaker 1: United States has violated w t O rules. At the
Speaker 1: end of the process, the w t pelet body UM
Speaker 1: will first the appelate body rules that the US has
Speaker 1: violated the W two agreements and explains why and how
Speaker 1: it gives the United States a chance to bring itself
Speaker 1: into compliance. But then the fourth and last day each
Speaker 1: of the United States fails to change. What it's doing
Speaker 1: is to authorize retaliation. And there's really a fourth procedure
Speaker 1: by which the countries that took us to court proposed
Speaker 1: to be a pallepody what kind of retaliation they want
Speaker 1: to engage in. It will be some kind of trade
Speaker 1: barriers against US goods or services going to their countries UH,
Speaker 1: and then the w A palipody will authorite specific UH
Speaker 1: such trade barriers, specific retaliation. The EU has already threatened
Speaker 1: to retaliate against the US, might it do that before
Speaker 1: going to the w t O. Well, there's always a
Speaker 1: risk of that UM that would really send us into
Speaker 1: a downward spiral. The whole point of the w A
Speaker 1: dispute resolution processes to give countries a legal mechanism for
Speaker 1: retaliation so that we don't run into you violated the
Speaker 1: treaty and in response, we're going to violate the treaty
Speaker 1: and everything goes into a downward spiral that collapses a
Speaker 1: global trading system UM instead the process. First of all,
Speaker 1: it gives the countries an opportunity to settle dispute. Second
Speaker 1: of all, it it's a process where takes a little
Speaker 1: bit of time, so one can can sort of have
Speaker 1: cool heads. UM. It gives the country that's violating the
Speaker 1: rules a chance to get its own political act in order,
Speaker 1: because usually there's some kind of domestic political UH forces
Speaker 1: pushing the violation UM, and they have some time to
Speaker 1: to to fix that. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: if if the retaliation is authorized by the w t O,
Speaker 1: then the retaliation is not another violation UM. And that
Speaker 1: also sort of helps everything from going into an uncontrolled
Speaker 1: downward spiral. So the Trump administration has already exempted Mexico
Speaker 1: and Canada from the tariffs. They may make more exceptions.
Speaker 1: How does that affect the US argument before the w
Speaker 1: t O that the tariffs are based on national security needs.
Speaker 1: The US never had a winning argument for the w
Speaker 1: t O UM. There's two different sets of law here.
Speaker 1: There's the U S law and there's the international law UM.
Speaker 1: On the international level, in order for the United States
Speaker 1: to impose trade barriers that we would otherwise not be
Speaker 1: entitled to impose under our trade agreement obligations. If we're
Speaker 1: using national security as our reason, UM, we would have
Speaker 1: to have we'd have to either be in time of
Speaker 1: war or we'd have to be in an emergency. And
Speaker 1: international relations, which is generally understood to be the things
Speaker 1: that happened right before you're actually in the war UM.
Speaker 1: But in any event, UM, we don't have either. We
Speaker 1: we we have nothing that could even be close to
Speaker 1: an emergency international relations. What we have our US government
Speaker 1: officials that can envisage an unlikely but theoretically possible future
Speaker 1: scenario where there would be a World War three UM.
Speaker 1: Global ocean shipping would be disrupted. We would not be
Speaker 1: able to import steel or aluminum UH in meaningful quantities
Speaker 1: because they need to go by ocean freight, not air
Speaker 1: freight UH, and we wouldn't have sufficient capacity for our
Speaker 1: own domestic economy during that disruption. The fact that you
Speaker 1: can envisage a theoretical but unlikely future does not even
Speaker 1: come close to you currently right now having an emergency.
Speaker 1: So there's no question that we don't qualify for that
Speaker 1: that national security exception, and that's in the General Agreement
Speaker 1: on Tires and trade the GAT Article one. And as
Speaker 1: a result, we are violating our normal bindings with respect
Speaker 1: to the duties that when there are customs duties that
Speaker 1: we're allowed to impose on these goods. So we never
Speaker 1: had an argument. Are our complete absence of argument? Uh
Speaker 1: to defend ourselves in w t O is a more
Speaker 1: complete absence of argument. But the big difference so that
Speaker 1: it does make um is under US law. Even if
Speaker 1: the US were authorized under w t O rules to
Speaker 1: impose these barriers, and there still would be the question
Speaker 1: of whether there's Congress, We'll have to leave that. We'll
Speaker 1: pick We'll pick this up again, I'm sure, Matt, thanks
Speaker 1: so much. That's Matt Gold of Boredom Law School. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brolso this
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. Yeah, yeah,