Speaker 1: Hey Brian, Hi Katie. Well, it was great to be
Speaker 1: with you in Los Angeles last week. It was so
Speaker 1: fun for me to see Eliza, who's gotten so big
Speaker 1: and really seems to like cheese. Well, we keep feeding
Speaker 1: her so she keeps growing, and she she loved, she loved,
Speaker 1: meaning Katie. She's heard a lot about you. She told
Speaker 1: me afterwards that you're not nearly as bad as I said,
Speaker 1: So I think you got a new thing. Thankful lot, Brian.
Speaker 1: I have seen her since she was an itty bitty baby,
Speaker 1: and it's just amazing she's how old now, Brian, she's
Speaker 1: almost two, and you should come to l A more
Speaker 1: often and hang out girls chat with She was adorable
Speaker 1: and of course Brian has a wonderful wife, Claire, and
Speaker 1: I always love seeing Claire as well. So we also
Speaker 1: did something we don't normally do, and that is we
Speaker 1: had a photo shoot. We were ready for our close
Speaker 1: ups because we're taking some new pictures for the podcast.
Speaker 1: We want a fresh and up the look and of
Speaker 1: course includes your beautiful mug and more of the photos. So, um,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think you have a future male
Speaker 1: modeling Brian. Oh yeah, and if you believe that I've
Speaker 1: got a Trump University dude you to give you anyway. Uh,
Speaker 1: I handed the photographer a twenty for some air brushing,
Speaker 1: so hopefully that works. Yeah. Sure. Anyway, it was a
Speaker 1: lot of fun and it was fun to see you,
Speaker 1: and as I said, it was great fun to see
Speaker 1: Eliza and Claire. Meanwhile, I'm back in New York. I'm
Speaker 1: not traveling for an entire month. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: get on an airplane because my life has been insane
Speaker 1: with a lot of travel the beginning of the summer.
Speaker 1: So now I'm just keeping my feet firmly planted on
Speaker 1: the ground and I'm here in our New York studio. Brian,
Speaker 1: you're still in l A. And we just had a conversation,
Speaker 1: a really interesting one with former U S attorney Pre Barrara.
Speaker 1: He was a wonderful source of information and insight about
Speaker 1: everything that's going on with the Trump investigation. I think
Speaker 1: it's very easy in the day to day of the
Speaker 1: coverage to lose perspective um and to really understand what's
Speaker 1: going on, and so I think he was terrific at
Speaker 1: stepping back and giving us, in a sort of Joe Friday,
Speaker 1: just the facts ma'am style, and maybe I'm dating myself
Speaker 1: with that reference, a sense of what matters here, what
Speaker 1: the stakes are, and really to help us understand the
Speaker 1: Trump investigation and how it's going and really Trump investigations,
Speaker 1: because he talked about the different jurisdictions or auspices under
Speaker 1: which these investigations are taking. Is that that the right
Speaker 1: legal way to say, Brian. With the Russian investigation being conducted,
Speaker 1: of course by Robert Muller, and the investigation into Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen's activities being investigated by the U. S. Attorney for
Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York, which is Prett's old office,
Speaker 1: and folks, if you're unfamiliar, being a U. S. Attorney
Speaker 1: is essentially the top federal prosecutor in a particular location,
Speaker 1: and the Southern District of New York is probably the
Speaker 1: most important office in the country because it covers Manhattan,
Speaker 1: so Wall Street is under its jurisdiction. A lot of
Speaker 1: New York political corruption cases are under its jurisdiction, and
Speaker 1: very relevant here, uh, the home and business of the
Speaker 1: President of the United States are under its jurisdiction. By
Speaker 1: the way, everyone, this is a crossover show, and that
Speaker 1: means our conversation will be broadcast on pres terrific podcast
Speaker 1: try to say that ten times fast, called Stay Tuned
Speaker 1: with pret and it will be broadcasts on our terrific
Speaker 1: podcast called Katie Curic. And we're trying to come up
Speaker 1: with a new name, so we'll take any suggestions. Everyone,
Speaker 1: just keep Brian's name out of it. Just I'm totally kidding.
Speaker 1: But anyway, we're hoping that people who are listening to
Speaker 1: Preach show may find ours worth downloading or subscribing to.
Speaker 1: And conversely, we're hoping that you all will check out
Speaker 1: Stay Tuned with pret because he's absolutely terrific and has
Speaker 1: a lot of incredibly smart insights to share. And if
Speaker 1: you're a longtime listener of our show, tell your friends,
Speaker 1: tell your family, tell your mail carrier, tell your hairdresser.
Speaker 1: We're not proud, just tell everyone please. Meanwhile, we had
Speaker 1: a great conversation, as Brian said, with Prett, who gave
Speaker 1: us really some much needed perspective, and we began by
Speaker 1: talking to him about his short lived friendship with Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and the events leading up to his vacating the premises.
Speaker 1: A lot of people outside New York know you as
Speaker 1: the U S attorney in Manhattan who was fired by
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. And you've told the story a million times,
Speaker 1: I'm sure, but can you tell our listeners as well
Speaker 1: as some people who haven't heard the first episode of
Speaker 1: your show, what happened and why it got so much attention? Um? Well,
Speaker 1: thanks again for having me. It's very exciting to be
Speaker 1: here on Stay Tuned with Katie and Brian. You're looking
Speaker 1: for a new name, we are. I got some very
Speaker 1: twitter suggestions. I think I think you like Stay Tuned.
Speaker 1: My lawyers will not go after you if you if
Speaker 1: you name it Stay Tuned with Katie and Brunn. Oh wait, pretty,
Speaker 1: did you not get the memo we're actually replacing you
Speaker 1: on your show? This is very awkward. Actually, I thought
Speaker 1: he had been told Katie like the worst political junkie ever.
Speaker 1: If you're if you're starting off the interview with your
Speaker 1: fired because you know that happened to me last year,
Speaker 1: which was I think the question. We've come full circles,
Speaker 1: see how I feel, abuster. Look, So, so, I was
Speaker 1: the U S Attorney for a number of years. It
Speaker 1: was appointed by President Obama, confirmed by the Senate, and
Speaker 1: then it ordinarily happens when a new president comes in
Speaker 1: particularly one of the other party. All the US attorneys,
Speaker 1: all the ambassadors, they all know that the new president
Speaker 1: and the administration deserves its own people. And that's totally normal.
Speaker 1: Happens every time, and I expected that to be true
Speaker 1: for me also in November when when Donald Trump won
Speaker 1: and in fact I had no job security, uh that
Speaker 1: I could have expected even if Hillary Clinton had one,
Speaker 1: because it's a new president. But about eight days after
Speaker 1: the election, the President elect Trump called the Senator for
Speaker 1: whom I used to work, Chuck Schumer, and said, among
Speaker 1: other things, do you think pre would stay in his
Speaker 1: job and stay on for another term? And claimed to
Speaker 1: be a big fan of mine, said I was doing
Speaker 1: a great job. I thought about it. I had expected
Speaker 1: to go do other things. I've been in public service
Speaker 1: for over seventeen years at that point, so I thought
Speaker 1: about it. And the best job I've ever had that
Speaker 1: I will ever have. It's an independent job. We did,
Speaker 1: you know the job a politically, we don't think about
Speaker 1: someone being a Democrat and a Republican. We just bring
Speaker 1: our cases independently, which is the reputation of the office.
Speaker 1: And so then I was asked to meet with the
Speaker 1: President elect before the formal offer, I guess would happen.
Speaker 1: So I went to Trump Tower November. His desk with
Speaker 1: all the magazines piled up, there's a lot of Trump paraphernalia. Well,
Speaker 1: every magazine cover that he's been on the cover of
Speaker 1: is on his desk, and they're probably six deep. Was
Speaker 1: it still the case? I saw that, But I also
Speaker 1: saw in the hallway leading to his office there's all
Speaker 1: sorts of Trump paraphernalia, the pictures and photographs and you know,
Speaker 1: knickknacks and all sorts of things. But before I even
Speaker 1: got up there in the lobby, remember at the time
Speaker 1: during transition, there were all sorts of reporters hanging out
Speaker 1: sort of penned in behind the velvet rope um, you know,
Speaker 1: seeing who was coming and going, and so you know,
Speaker 1: people recognize me when I when I went by, and
Speaker 1: some reporter while I was waiting for the elevator to come,
Speaker 1: this he held out, you know, Mr Brara, are you
Speaker 1: here to serve a subpoena? I wasn't at that moment um,
Speaker 1: so I know the older takes a long time. It's
Speaker 1: a goal plate elevator. You go upstairs. The president was running.
Speaker 1: President elect was running a little bit late, so I
Speaker 1: shot the breeze with Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon, who
Speaker 1: was wearing only one shirt at the time. Uh in
Speaker 1: his office, waited for the President elect to come in.
Speaker 1: The president was very uh, you know, lovely. We talked
Speaker 1: about the office. Nothing inappropriate was said. He said I
Speaker 1: was doing a great job, he said, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: you're getting a lot offers to go into private practice.
Speaker 1: I hope you would consider staying, and I said I would.
Speaker 1: The only odd thing that happened in the meeting was
Speaker 1: he pushed, you know, a yellow pad of post it's
Speaker 1: towards me and asked me for my phone number, my
Speaker 1: phone numbers. So it was odd that the President elect
Speaker 1: of the United States of America was asking me from
Speaker 1: my digits, and presumably they already had them somewhere, because
Speaker 1: that's how I came to be at the meeting in
Speaker 1: the first place. So I didn't really understand, although Jared
Speaker 1: and Steve didn't seem to think it was out at all,
Speaker 1: that you know, that the next leader of the free
Speaker 1: world was asking someone first phone numbers, didn't think anything
Speaker 1: of it. Um I was asked to call Jeff Sessions,
Speaker 1: the incoming Attorney general, from the elevator bank outside. Everyone
Speaker 1: said they were excited to work with me, and so
Speaker 1: that was nice. Jeff Sessions. I did from the elevator
Speaker 1: bank outside the elevator bank on the I think the
Speaker 1: floor tower. They wanted to make sure that, you know,
Speaker 1: they had checked the box. You know, he's going to
Speaker 1: be the Attorney general. I'm gonna be the US attorney
Speaker 1: who puatively works for the Attorney General. I just wanted
Speaker 1: to make sure that he was looped in. And it
Speaker 1: wasn't just the you know, the president and his staff
Speaker 1: deciding on their own. It was a sort of a
Speaker 1: consultation with the cabinet official. Who's the most relevant one
Speaker 1: for my purposes and also the right thing to do.
Speaker 1: So he said, yeah, nothing if not good for him,
Speaker 1: Uh suggestions. Who I knew a little bit when I
Speaker 1: used to work for Senator Schumer. He was the ranking
Speaker 1: member on the subcommittee for which I worked, so I
Speaker 1: knew him a little bit. He said, looking forward to
Speaker 1: working with you. Then I went downstairs and I had
Speaker 1: I had asked President elect Trump if they were going
Speaker 1: to be making an announcement, and he said, well, was
Speaker 1: there press when you came in, I said, yes, there was.
Speaker 1: Well did they recognize you? And I said yes they did.
Speaker 1: I didn't tell them the subpoena things I thought he
Speaker 1: might appreciate. How funny would that be? Now it's a
Speaker 1: little funnier and more relevant now. But um, he said,
Speaker 1: why don't you go back out and just tell the
Speaker 1: press that I've asked you to stay? I think you're
Speaker 1: pick and I've asked you to stay. And so I did.
Speaker 1: And that was the last meeting I had with the
Speaker 1: president elect. But then, Um, as I've said publicly before,
Speaker 1: he would call me from time to time, which is
Speaker 1: an odd thing for a sitting president elect to be calling,
Speaker 1: even though we had no prior relationship. Um. And it
Speaker 1: wasn't you know, a matter of business with the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: He called me in December. Then he called me again
Speaker 1: two days before the inauguration. What did he call you about?
Speaker 1: Seemingly just to chat and make nice. It was just
Speaker 1: small talk, and it seemed odd to me at the time.
Speaker 1: Now we know he does that from time to time.
Speaker 1: He cultivates people. We know from Jim Comey's testimony that
Speaker 1: from time to time the president would call him. Um,
Speaker 1: He never asked me to do anything inappropriate and never
Speaker 1: has asked me to do anything untoward. But it's all
Speaker 1: odd for someone who has, you know, about to have
Speaker 1: the biggest job in the world to have time to call,
Speaker 1: you know, the local U. S attorney in Manhattan, who
Speaker 1: I will note, has technical jurisdiction over, among other things,
Speaker 1: that person's businesses, that person's residence, that person's associates. Were
Speaker 1: you conducting any investigations at the time into anything Trump related.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna answer that broad question, but i will
Speaker 1: say that at the time, publicly, there were calls from
Speaker 1: my office to look at all sorts of things, including
Speaker 1: the monuments clause that people have heard things about. So
Speaker 1: fast forward to the time. So when I got those
Speaker 1: calls from the President elect, I let the head of
Speaker 1: transition know, and I made sure that people in my
Speaker 1: staff knew, and we decided it was okay to return
Speaker 1: the calls because he was not yet the president of
Speaker 1: the United States and there was no there was no
Speaker 1: actual Attorney general at the time. He didn't say anything
Speaker 1: that he was not supposed to say, but it was
Speaker 1: just it was just a weird Well, I'm just curious
Speaker 1: when you say small talk like that mean, do you
Speaker 1: play golf? I mean? What was that? When he called
Speaker 1: me before the inauguration a day or two before the inauguration,
Speaker 1: probably the biggest day of his life in some way, like,
Speaker 1: don't you have a speech to write? I asked him
Speaker 1: about this speech? I said, I said, sir, how's the
Speaker 1: speech coming? And he said, which you may find interesting,
Speaker 1: it's going really well. I'm writing it all myself, and
Speaker 1: it's about it's about hope, neither of which things I
Speaker 1: believe to be true. Carnage. Maybe maybe the Wordsmith's got
Speaker 1: to him between like the Wednesday and the Friday. I
Speaker 1: think Steve Bannon got to him. He may he may have.
Speaker 1: He asked me if I was doing all right. He
Speaker 1: told me some stories about He told me how lots
Speaker 1: of people are coming to see him. He was very
Speaker 1: impressed that, you know, governors all around the country had
Speaker 1: their hands out and wanted government handouts. It was basically
Speaker 1: like he was trying to be your buddy. Am I right? Yeah?
Speaker 1: My My view is now based on other things that happened,
Speaker 1: on calls he made to Jim Comey, and the way
Speaker 1: he conducts himself and the way he sort of violence,
Speaker 1: the protocols and norms of the Justice Department Independent Investigation
Speaker 1: that in the way he conducted his business previously, that
Speaker 1: he doesn't see walls between law enforcement and politics, and
Speaker 1: that it's good for him to cultivate a relationship and
Speaker 1: be buddies with people if at such time you want
Speaker 1: a favor or and again there's this speculation on my part,
Speaker 1: but it's quite educated speculation. If it's sometime you need
Speaker 1: someone to do you a favor, or to lay off somebody,
Speaker 1: or to show loyalty, it's better to have had a
Speaker 1: friendly relationship with that person. We'll never know, because a
Speaker 1: couple of months into the presidency, Donald Trump called me again.
Speaker 1: Now he's a sitting president, and now it seems highly
Speaker 1: inappropriate that it wasn't coming through the channel of the
Speaker 1: Attorney General or the deputy Attorney General. There's no warning
Speaker 1: about it. I didn't know what the call was about. Um.
Speaker 1: There are protocols that are very sort of serious that
Speaker 1: the White House has put out because of prior scandals,
Speaker 1: that make it clear that nobody is supposed to talk
Speaker 1: to a law enforcement official at a certain level about
Speaker 1: an enforcement Actionally, I didn't know if he was gonna
Speaker 1: be calling me about enforcement action. But I thought it
Speaker 1: was odd, uh, And I kept thinking about and I
Speaker 1: called my deputy into discuss whether or not I should
Speaker 1: return the coin that seems bizarre to people. Your boss
Speaker 1: calls you, you call him back. You know, the president
Speaker 1: really isn't your boss. If you were a local United
Speaker 1: States attorney, you serve the people, You serve your oath,
Speaker 1: you serve the Constitution. In some measures, you serve the
Speaker 1: Attorney General. But we in the in the what we
Speaker 1: have called over time, the Sovereign District of New York,
Speaker 1: sometimes don't even think we serve of the Attorney General.
Speaker 1: And I didn't know what the nature of the call
Speaker 1: was going to be. And one of the things we
Speaker 1: thought about was, well, how's this going to work if
Speaker 1: he says something inappropriate and cross some line, which was possible,
Speaker 1: and now we know, you know, after the fact, that
Speaker 1: he's done things like that. I believe, who's gonna believe
Speaker 1: my side of the throat? We actually contemplated, and this
Speaker 1: is interesting in later we had a discussion about whether
Speaker 1: or not we should tape the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: We decided against that because we, unlike Michael Cohen, his
Speaker 1: own lawyer. I thought it was kind of uncool to
Speaker 1: take the president of the United States. Then we thought
Speaker 1: about having a witness to the call. But it just
Speaker 1: shows you, even early on, before a lot of the
Speaker 1: new information has come out, that there were lots and
Speaker 1: lots of people, including the president's own lawyer, who believed
Speaker 1: that when you have a conversation with Donald Trump, you
Speaker 1: want to have proof of what the conversation was because
Speaker 1: there might be a dispute about the content of it later.
Speaker 1: And the other thing I kept thinking about was something
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump said over and over and over again
Speaker 1: during the campaign. He kept casting aspersions on Loretta Lynch
Speaker 1: for having that now famous meeting at the tarmac with
Speaker 1: former President Bill Clinton, whose wife Hilly Clinton, was under investigation.
Speaker 1: And that was just a nice chit chat, the participants claim.
Speaker 1: And I believe that to be true because I trust
Speaker 1: Luretta Lynch. I think she's an honorable person who wouldn't
Speaker 1: violate her oath. But Donald Trump himself got to say,
Speaker 1: over and over and over again, what do you think
Speaker 1: they were talking about. I'm sure they were talking about
Speaker 1: the case. And I'm thinking to myself, even if the
Speaker 1: president of United States sought to have an innocent conversation
Speaker 1: with me, which I don't know how he has time
Speaker 1: to have a conversation with me given everything else going
Speaker 1: on in the world. Who's going to believe that. If
Speaker 1: later it looks like we chose not to investigate something,
Speaker 1: or we were investigating something and chose not to bring
Speaker 1: a charge against an associate, it has all the makings
Speaker 1: of an accusation that we had some side deal. I
Speaker 1: went to Trump Tower, I kissed the ring uh. He
Speaker 1: he asked me to stay. I agreed to stay. There
Speaker 1: was some deal of of friendship or loyalty, and no
Speaker 1: good could come of returning the call. So I called
Speaker 1: actually Jeff Sessions, chiefest staff, and said I got this
Speaker 1: phone call, and he agreed with me that I shouldn't
Speaker 1: return the call. Knowing that, you know, knowing what we
Speaker 1: know about the President's personality, he would be what's the
Speaker 1: technical term, piste off. So I called the secretary at
Speaker 1: the White House back on March nine, two thou and
Speaker 1: seventeen as that I consulted with the Justice Department for
Speaker 1: a variety of reasons. I don't think it's appropriate for
Speaker 1: me to have a conversation directly with the President, no offense,
Speaker 1: um and and twenty hours later I was asking my resignation. Now,
Speaker 1: I cannot prove that those things are connected, and everyone
Speaker 1: else who was a holdover was also asked to resign.
Speaker 1: But it seems odd to me that those things would
Speaker 1: be so closely connected in time unless they were at
Speaker 1: least a little bit related. So pretty you won't answer
Speaker 1: the question about whether there was any Trump related investigation.
Speaker 1: You're gonna ask me something anyway, aren't you. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna ask you saying a little bit connected to that,
Speaker 1: which is is there any evidence of Trump similarly reaching
Speaker 1: out to any other U. S. Attorney around the country. No,
Speaker 1: there's not. I mean I presumably, uh, hypothetically it could
Speaker 1: have happened. And the other thing to be aware of
Speaker 1: he then the president. My understanding is from the reporting
Speaker 1: personally interviewed certain um, you know, appointments to U. S. Attorney,
Speaker 1: including the one in New York, the one in Washington,
Speaker 1: D C. And I think one in Florida, all who incidentally,
Speaker 1: out of the nineties, three offices have technical jurisdiction over
Speaker 1: the person and property of the President and his associates.
Speaker 1: So you think he would have learned from that interaction,
Speaker 1: and it seems like he didn't. Again, which is not
Speaker 1: to say that any one did anything wrong or inappropriate,
Speaker 1: but there is there is a you know, definitely an
Speaker 1: m O on the part of this president to develop
Speaker 1: relationships with people, whether they're in law enforcement or otherwise,
Speaker 1: when the norm has always been different. And and have
Speaker 1: you run into anybody since have you been able to
Speaker 1: ascertain if in fact those things might have been connected
Speaker 1: that you weren't going to play ball? And so I've
Speaker 1: not I've not made any accusation along those lines, but
Speaker 1: I've lived long enough to know you have to wait
Speaker 1: and see what the historical record is. And then you know,
Speaker 1: when when I was asked to resign, I didn't. And
Speaker 1: initially I wasn't trying to be a prima donna. I
Speaker 1: just was confused because I was the only person from
Speaker 1: the prior administration who had had a personal meeting with
Speaker 1: the president, shook his hand and was asked to stay. So,
Speaker 1: you know, given the level of incompetence that this administration
Speaker 1: has often shown, I think that's not even not even
Speaker 1: a partisan point, It's just a fact. When they rolled
Speaker 1: out the travel band, They rolled out all sorts of
Speaker 1: other things. Maybe it didn't occur to them. Well, some
Speaker 1: people stand in a different position. So I was just
Speaker 1: trying to get the answer. How did they let you
Speaker 1: know that you're the acting deputy general? Danna bent A
Speaker 1: called me a two thirty on on the afternoon of
Speaker 1: March tenth, it was of Friday, and asked me to
Speaker 1: my letter of resonation. I said to him again, I
Speaker 1: wasn't trying to be difficult because I served at the
Speaker 1: pleasure of the president. Are you sure it applies to me?
Speaker 1: Because you know I had that thing at the Trump Tower.
Speaker 1: Bannon was there. President he asked me to stay. So
Speaker 1: this is obviously didn't apply to everyone, because two of
Speaker 1: the sitting US attorneys at the time, one was Rod Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: obviously he wasn't being asked to resign, didn't want him
Speaker 1: to go, and the others Danna bent To himself. Ah,
Speaker 1: So it was unclear to me if they meant for
Speaker 1: me to be asked to let go, to be like
Speaker 1: O or not. And then again, because I lived a
Speaker 1: long time, I thought it just needed to be clear
Speaker 1: that this was the wish of the president. If it was,
Speaker 1: and it took twenty four hours to learn that. You know,
Speaker 1: I walked out into into the open air as a
Speaker 1: free civilian man, but I didn't want it to be
Speaker 1: you know, suggested if in fact there was some nefarious
Speaker 1: thing going on. I'm not saying their watch, but if
Speaker 1: in fact there was something nefarious going on, and people
Speaker 1: are trying to avoid an investigation of some sort, that
Speaker 1: it should just be clear that this was the wish
Speaker 1: of the president and not some functionary who was in
Speaker 1: an acting capacity at the Justice Department. Why was that
Speaker 1: important because so later on if you have to find
Speaker 1: out why people did what they did, people don't have
Speaker 1: plausible deniability. If I if I had never had the meeting, again,
Speaker 1: as I said, the outset and people conflate these things,
Speaker 1: I had no expectation of staying. There's actually not even
Speaker 1: a tradition of the next president keeping someone before. Now
Speaker 1: sometimes it happens. Rod Rosenstein served under George W. Bush
Speaker 1: and then was was kept on by Barack Obama and
Speaker 1: kept on again by Nald Trump. So there are exceptions
Speaker 1: that Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed by one president and kept
Speaker 1: on by the following president. So it's a small minority
Speaker 1: of people I didn't expect to be in that position,
Speaker 1: but once someone asks you to stay in with a
Speaker 1: lot of fanfare, you know, I was asked to stand
Speaker 1: for another term before he appointed in a pretty public way,
Speaker 1: very public way. And then when you see other things
Speaker 1: that happened, and you see you begin to see the
Speaker 1: ways in which the president thinks about law enforcement and
Speaker 1: thinks about personal loyalty, and thinks about how you interfere
Speaker 1: with things. You know, issues pardons without going through the process,
Speaker 1: asks Jeff Sessions, as we found out later, and I
Speaker 1: believe this, you know, can you can the department do
Speaker 1: something to back off on jour Pyle asked Jim call
Speaker 1: me and I believe this also, can you back off
Speaker 1: on Michael Flynn? These are the kinds of conversations that
Speaker 1: the president thinks are appropriate that that puts into a
Speaker 1: different light the nature of the cause he was making
Speaker 1: to me, And as somebody who's been in the legal
Speaker 1: system for so long, why is that such a dangerous
Speaker 1: m o pre Because because the law is the law,
Speaker 1: and it's supposed to be independently enforced, and no one
Speaker 1: gets special privileges, that law applies equally to everybody, even
Speaker 1: though we have seen examples of this. These are I
Speaker 1: think transgressions of norms and very important norms in this country.
Speaker 1: Unlike a Banana Republic, elected leaders don't get to decide
Speaker 1: because they have enemies or they have friends, Um who
Speaker 1: gets prosecuted who doesn't based on their level of friendship
Speaker 1: with you or based on their level of adversari, noess
Speaker 1: towards you. That's how it's supposed to be. And and
Speaker 1: scale look at the scandals have been avoided because they
Speaker 1: have these protocols in place. That the reason you have
Speaker 1: these guidelines that make clear that a political official in
Speaker 1: the White House is not supposed to call a you know,
Speaker 1: a lower level Department of Justice official to say, hey,
Speaker 1: what's going on without investigation of my former business colleague?
Speaker 1: Or hey, can you take a look at investigating uh,
Speaker 1: you know this political adversary I had. That's not That's
Speaker 1: not a kind of country I think that we're supposed
Speaker 1: to live in. I'm just curious that Brian's gonna have
Speaker 1: a million questions that Brian, just because there's an opening here,
Speaker 1: does it concern you? Does the nomination of Brett Avanaugh
Speaker 1: concern you? For that reason that he seems to have
Speaker 1: a particular view about the power of the presidency. So
Speaker 1: I think there's reason to be concerned that Brett Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: has a view a little bit conveniently adopted after he
Speaker 1: had a different view as a policy matter. As people
Speaker 1: may know, Brett Kavanaugh, one of the first things he
Speaker 1: did as a as a lawyer was working on the
Speaker 1: Star investigation of a sitting president and appears to have
Speaker 1: had a quite different view of what you can subject
Speaker 1: to sitting president too. And later he had he has
Speaker 1: had a slightly different view, had an epiphany somehow you look,
Speaker 1: it can be working in the White House. I mean,
Speaker 1: this was not a crazy story that that experiencing the
Speaker 1: incoming that you see actually working inside the White House,
Speaker 1: which he did under the George W. Bush administration. He
Speaker 1: changed his mind and he acknowledged that it was a
Speaker 1: you know, different position. It looks I credit his you
Speaker 1: know statement that he changed his mind more than I
Speaker 1: credit what I've seen Rudy Giuliani do massold Rudy Giuliani
Speaker 1: the I'm TV recently saying that a president does not
Speaker 1: have to obey a subpoena for testimony, when at the
Speaker 1: same time I'm forgetting who it was on cable television
Speaker 1: showing him a video of himself saying the exact opposite.
Speaker 1: And rather than say I had a change of heart
Speaker 1: or I changed my mind, he said I never said
Speaker 1: those things. So Grigiliani, uniquely in public life and American law,
Speaker 1: can have two opposite ideas in his head at the
Speaker 1: same time and claim them both to be correct. Well,
Speaker 1: the difference is one president's a Democrat and the others
Speaker 1: a Republican. And do you think that Brett Kavanaugh's nomination
Speaker 1: was more appealing because of his change of heart? I'm
Speaker 1: prepared to believe that, Like what I think is clear. Uh, No,
Speaker 1: matter what you think about the president is that he
Speaker 1: doesn't do a lot of homework. Um, I doubt, in
Speaker 1: fact not. I wouldn't would bet everything I have that
Speaker 1: he didn't read a number of opinions by brit have
Speaker 1: and I'd be shocked if you read even one. I'd
Speaker 1: be shocked if you read the briefing materials that were
Speaker 1: put together and we prepared senators for confirmation hearings and
Speaker 1: to figure out what our views would be on particular
Speaker 1: people who might be nominated. Those briefing materials go to many, many,
Speaker 1: many many, many pages and hundreds of pages. So I'm
Speaker 1: prepared to believe that Donald Trump you took advice from,
Speaker 1: as everyone knows, um the Federal Society and the Heritage
Speaker 1: Foundation to come up with his list of first twenty
Speaker 1: and I think then Brett Caabnot was added later to
Speaker 1: that list people who the conservative community of a particular
Speaker 1: stripe I thought were good and people on the conservative
Speaker 1: side of politics would support. And then in getting briefed
Speaker 1: orally casually, you know, some of the bullet points that
Speaker 1: must have been suggested to the president would have included
Speaker 1: this idea that Brett Kavanaugh has been putting forward that
Speaker 1: the president can do, you know, exercise his power in
Speaker 1: a very broad way. And I'm sure that was a
Speaker 1: little bit music to his ears. I don't know if
Speaker 1: that was the the basis. I think other presidents who
Speaker 1: are not in the legal jeopardy that the President Trump
Speaker 1: is in might have also appointed Brett Kavin. I think
Speaker 1: of Jeb bushould become the president, Brett Kavina would have
Speaker 1: been at the absolute top of the list. But I
Speaker 1: wouldn't be surprised if it was a little bit of
Speaker 1: icing on the cake. What is striking that In his
Speaker 1: first public statement as President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh said no president has conducted a more thorough
Speaker 1: or comprehensive process to pick a nominee than President Trump has,
Speaker 1: which is kind of an extraordinary states that it's one
Speaker 1: of the most bizarre and demonstrably false statements ever made,
Speaker 1: which is saying a lot from how do you know
Speaker 1: it's follow how do you know it's demonstrably false? Because
Speaker 1: the historical record shows that multiple presidents, not sometimes presidents
Speaker 1: don't consult that much, the multiple multiple presidents have consulted
Speaker 1: extensively with the other party. There are books on how
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton and you might not like his nominees if
Speaker 1: you're a conservative, how he reached out across the aisle,
Speaker 1: talked to Orange Hatch and other folks. Um who I
Speaker 1: think during one of these periods was high ranking or
Speaker 1: the chair of the leader of the Republicans and the
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee to vet the possibility of people he would
Speaker 1: be nominating. On the other hand, the documentary evidence and
Speaker 1: the testimonial evidence, if you interview people on what Donald
Speaker 1: Trump did was merely some people say, outsourced the decision
Speaker 1: of who to put on the list, to the Heritage Foundation,
Speaker 1: UM and to the Federal Society, there was no one
Speaker 1: has come forward with any plausible suggestion of any sort
Speaker 1: by anyone the president. Donald Trump consulted with any member
Speaker 1: of the other party, and other presidents have, you know,
Speaker 1: kept this sort of internal as well. But to say
Speaker 1: that he consulted more widely than anyone else, ever, I
Speaker 1: think it's demonstrably untrue. It's time to take a quick break.
Speaker 1: When we're back with pre Perar, we're going to dig
Speaker 1: into much more from whether Michael Cohen has flipped to
Speaker 1: what advice pret would give to Donald Trump if he
Speaker 1: were his lawyer? And now back to our conversation with
Speaker 1: pre Berr. How do you assess the extent to which
Speaker 1: President Trump is in legal jeopardy? If here were your
Speaker 1: client as a lawyer, how would you describe the overall
Speaker 1: magnitude of this problem to him? But those are those
Speaker 1: are different questions. How do you assess? I think it's
Speaker 1: difficult to us as you just know what's in the
Speaker 1: public record. You know that Bob Mueller and his team
Speaker 1: are full of super professional, smart heads down kinds of
Speaker 1: lawyers who will bring a case if there's a case
Speaker 1: to be brought, won't bring one if there's not one
Speaker 1: to be brought. And when you're talking about legal jeopardy
Speaker 1: and the way normal people understand it, whether or not
Speaker 1: someone is subject to being arrested, I think the president
Speaker 1: is not in any legal jeopardy really, because I believe
Speaker 1: that that especially Counsel Mueller will take the view that
Speaker 1: the Office of Legal Counsel to Justice Department has taken
Speaker 1: for a long time now. Not everyone agrees with it,
Speaker 1: but it's the prevailing view that a sitting pret no
Speaker 1: with not just Brett Kavana's view that a sitting president
Speaker 1: cannot be indicted. So in that regard, he doesn't have
Speaker 1: a lot of sort of imminent legal jeopardy in the
Speaker 1: way that some lawyers have to counsel with their clients
Speaker 1: to have a bag packed and a toothbrush, you know,
Speaker 1: in their overnight bag, and take care of their affairs,
Speaker 1: take care of their affairs. You know, some some players
Speaker 1: tell their clients when they think they're about to be arrested,
Speaker 1: to avoid you know, being arrested in front of their
Speaker 1: family and children. At six o'clock in the morning, they
Speaker 1: check into a hotel, you know, under an alias so
Speaker 1: that when the FBI finally comes, you know that the defendant,
Speaker 1: the target can surrender on his own terms later to
Speaker 1: law enforcement. So I don't think the president is any
Speaker 1: is in any jeopardy like that. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: there are people who around him who are and I
Speaker 1: think we're gonna see additional arrests, including my presumption is
Speaker 1: one of those people being his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1: So it's impossible to gauge separate apart from his inability
Speaker 1: to be indicted, how were he not the president? How
Speaker 1: much evidence is there that he engaged in some kind
Speaker 1: of conspiracy if there was knowledge on his part in
Speaker 1: what people say cocluding, But coluding is not really a crime,
Speaker 1: but conspiring with a foreign power to interfere with the election,
Speaker 1: or violent campaign finance laws, or engage in obstruction. So
Speaker 1: the jeopardy he's in is what Congress will do. Part
Speaker 1: of that depends on what the nature of Congress is
Speaker 1: part of Part of that depends on what happens with
Speaker 1: the Democrats in the fall. It also depends on what
Speaker 1: the priorities of the Democrats and others are. Not everyone
Speaker 1: is in favor of taking a legal action against the president.
Speaker 1: Now that the second party of question is what I
Speaker 1: would do or say if I were representing the president
Speaker 1: who had this level of legal jeopardy as to keep
Speaker 1: my mouth shut, I would be more a loot, more
Speaker 1: like Emmett Flood, who nobody knows, although he's representing the
Speaker 1: president of the United States as well. We just see
Speaker 1: the pr offensive that's not particularly helpful to the president
Speaker 1: by Rudy Giuliani on TV, and before that we saw
Speaker 1: the same from John Dowd and from Jay Seculo. Generally speaking,
Speaker 1: when your client, even if it's a higher file person
Speaker 1: like a politician or a celebrity or a billionaire, you
Speaker 1: keep your mouth shut and you do your work behind
Speaker 1: the scenes. Like the principal thing that you want to
Speaker 1: do is explain in a in a sober minded, respectful,
Speaker 1: rigorous way to the prosecutors who potentially are going to
Speaker 1: charge your client is why they have it wrong, And
Speaker 1: not blast them in public, and not proclaim facts about
Speaker 1: your client's knowledge that turned out to be untrue a
Speaker 1: short time thereafter. Not to make a proclamation about a
Speaker 1: potential witness against your client. In this case, Michael Cohen
Speaker 1: one day saying he's an honest and honorable man, the
Speaker 1: next day saying he's a pathological liar and his lied
Speaker 1: his whole life. And part of the reason you don't
Speaker 1: do that is you look First of all, you look
Speaker 1: like a fool. Second of all, you don't serve your
Speaker 1: client well. And in particularly the reason you don't serve
Speaker 1: your client well is you don't have credibility. This discussion
Speaker 1: about whether or not the president is going to sit
Speaker 1: down with a special counsel and on what terms. Those
Speaker 1: are human beings who are dealing with each other, you know,
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani or at Flood or whoever else is sitting down,
Speaker 1: not with robots, are seeing that with other people, and
Speaker 1: they're making representations about what the president you know, will
Speaker 1: agree to or not agree to, or they're making representations
Speaker 1: about what the law is and why the Special Council
Speaker 1: has it wrong, barking up the wrong tree. A lot
Speaker 1: of those arguments, as they are in life, generally, are
Speaker 1: persuasive or not persuasive if the person making them has
Speaker 1: personal credibility. And when Rudy and others go out there
Speaker 1: and say idiotic things that are proven false and flip
Speaker 1: flop day to day when a person like that, and
Speaker 1: we've had people like that are not as famous as
Speaker 1: Rudy Juliani. When a person like that does that in
Speaker 1: public and then comes into my office when I was
Speaker 1: the US Attorney and tries to make an argument to me,
Speaker 1: I don't credit it, And that's a failure of lawyering
Speaker 1: on the part of those guys. But do you think
Speaker 1: they're doing that for the for public consumption? There are
Speaker 1: two different audiences they're appealing to. And do you think
Speaker 1: there is a method to their madness that that people
Speaker 1: are so confused at this point they can't make head
Speaker 1: nor tails of anything, right. I'm always careful not to
Speaker 1: a tribute too much cleverness and strategic thinking on the
Speaker 1: part of people who look like they're saying silly, self
Speaker 1: contradictory things. It's possible, and that's obviously how folks are
Speaker 1: going to spend it. But I don't know anyone, even
Speaker 1: supporters of the president, who actually think that the constantly
Speaker 1: changing statements of Prudi Giuliani are helpful. In fact, I
Speaker 1: think I saw in the last couple of days a
Speaker 1: former lawyer to the president in other matters. I think
Speaker 1: the former divorced lawyer, who it seems remains loyal towards
Speaker 1: the president and infection about the president, said that ry
Speaker 1: Giliani's representation is a disaster. That said, maybe what Juliani
Speaker 1: is doing is acclimating the public to the idea of collusion,
Speaker 1: so that if and when Mueller proves it, you know,
Speaker 1: the reaction is, oh, of course, we knew there was collusion,
Speaker 1: just like when Ken Starr proves that Bill Clinton had
Speaker 1: the affair with Monica Lewinsky's moving the gold post, right,
Speaker 1: So people will be less shocked and more in nord
Speaker 1: to this whole notion. Look, it's possible, anything as possible.
Speaker 1: But I do think though, that really smart people like
Speaker 1: you guys and other folks in the public who are
Speaker 1: commentators because they're smart and rigorous, like to impose, you know,
Speaker 1: that kind of strategic thinking on the part of people
Speaker 1: who may just be incompetent. Can we ask you about
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen's case, because your old office is investigating. I
Speaker 1: have no personal knowledge of everything relating to that case.
Speaker 1: But what you've read, what you've seen in the public,
Speaker 1: so clearly he's flipped, right. I wouldn't say clearly, U,
Speaker 1: because remember, two things have to be necessary. Right. First,
Speaker 1: the guy who is in trouble in this case, Michael Cohen,
Speaker 1: has to make the decision that he wants to cooperate
Speaker 1: with the government, and that seems fairly clear, as your
Speaker 1: question and your smile indicates to me. But a second
Speaker 1: thing also has to be true. The government has to
Speaker 1: want your cooperation. The government has to believe the prosecutors
Speaker 1: have to believe that this potential target it in this case,
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen has substantial assistance to offer. Now everyone has
Speaker 1: been assuming I think it's not a terrible assumption that
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen knows what a lot of the bodies are buried,
Speaker 1: can cooperate with respect to a lot of folks, perhaps
Speaker 1: even the President of the United States, and then he
Speaker 1: has stuff to give. But then there's another sort of
Speaker 1: third issue as well. Let's say the first two conditions
Speaker 1: are met. Guys in trouble. Guy wants to co operate
Speaker 1: with the government, and government wants him. Government wants him,
Speaker 1: government thinks that person has information of criminality, and the
Speaker 1: party of other folks. The government also has to believe
Speaker 1: that the witness is going to be truthful going forward,
Speaker 1: also has to believe that the witness is going to
Speaker 1: be effective. I'm not saying this is true of Michael Cohen,
Speaker 1: but he's got a lot of baggage. Yeah. I think
Speaker 1: Giuliani's second assessment of Michael Cohen is the more correct one,
Speaker 1: that he's lined his whole life and presumably on behalf
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump, that the first assessment of his being
Speaker 1: honorable and honest was not true. You know, prosecutors put
Speaker 1: on people who have told lies before and who have
Speaker 1: killed people and have committed fraud. We put them on
Speaker 1: the stand to prosecute other people, but you have to
Speaker 1: go through a real serious assessment of how that's going
Speaker 1: to look, of whether or not they really turned the page,
Speaker 1: whether it's being fully honest with you. There are people
Speaker 1: who I'm not saying this is true of Michael Colin,
Speaker 1: but just remember that these other things. His mere willingness
Speaker 1: to flip against somebody, including maybe his former client, is
Speaker 1: not necessarily sufficient. And it is true that some cases
Speaker 1: never get made because the witness is so flawed and
Speaker 1: so unable to come to terms with the whole truth
Speaker 1: that they're not usable. Do these tape conversations change any
Speaker 1: of that. It would be one thing if there were
Speaker 1: no tapes. Right if you list the tapes, look so
Speaker 1: the last, the one tape that's been released looks like
Speaker 1: it was suddenly in abruptly shut off. And you know,
Speaker 1: you do have to worry him. Had people who claimed
Speaker 1: that things were said, but they selectively tape. Um, all
Speaker 1: these things I'm about to say are hypothetical. We don't
Speaker 1: know if Michael Cohen, for example, has three other tapes
Speaker 1: in which he looks terrible and he destroyed them. Let's
Speaker 1: say there's an email about that. Um, you know, let's
Speaker 1: say there are times when he was on tape, you know,
Speaker 1: spin a false story, so he would have something that
Speaker 1: looked like it was credible and tape recorded, but was
Speaker 1: really not true. That would then cast into doubt things
Speaker 1: on other tapes where he was telling the truth. I
Speaker 1: just don't know the extent of this. And I will
Speaker 1: tell you also that prosecutors all the time put on
Speaker 1: unsavory witnesses on the stand because that's the nature of it. Right,
Speaker 1: if you're a bad guy and you committy crimes with
Speaker 1: the mob, you're going to have the information about other
Speaker 1: guys in the mob. But there is a meter of
Speaker 1: unsavory nous that we look at, and the idea that
Speaker 1: a guy was recording his own client does not sit
Speaker 1: well with prosecutors who are by definition lawyers as well.
Speaker 1: And it may be okay, but you know, I think
Speaker 1: people are gonna have to think long and hard but
Speaker 1: how they're going to use a person like that. And
Speaker 1: by the way, on top of all that, the other
Speaker 1: thing prosecutors don't like this is a guy who has
Speaker 1: another lawyer, Landie Davis, who's trying to one up Rudy Giuliani.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors don't want people to come into their office. We're
Speaker 1: gonna be witnesses and then worried that the next day
Speaker 1: they're gonna go right on television, whether the lawyers gonna
Speaker 1: go right on television and say, here's what the prosecutors
Speaker 1: are thinking about, here's what I got asked, here's what
Speaker 1: my guy is gonna do. We hate that. It's terrible,
Speaker 1: it's awful. So they're all sorts of um, you know,
Speaker 1: thorny issues when you're dealing with what it seems like
Speaker 1: a somewhat not controllable witness like Michael Cohen, who also
Speaker 1: looks like he's lied a lot. And I know you
Speaker 1: can't get inside their heads. But what do you think
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani and Lannie Davis are thinking when they say
Speaker 1: yes to do all these TV shows. That's a great
Speaker 1: it's a great question. Look, each of them has sort
Speaker 1: of the the you know, the big mouth lawyer who's
Speaker 1: going on television. Maybe it's a you know, it's a
Speaker 1: split strategy. But each of them also has a very
Speaker 1: well respected, quiet, behind the scenes lawyer. In Michael Cohen's case,
Speaker 1: it's Guy Petrolo, who I worked for in private practice
Speaker 1: and who worked for me as the chief of my
Speaker 1: criminal division when I first became the OS attorney. He's
Speaker 1: as solid and competent and as ethical as they come.
Speaker 1: And so maybe it's the decision that some high profile
Speaker 1: uh you know, subjects and targets make. It's like, you
Speaker 1: know what, I am my legal strategy, and I got
Speaker 1: my brainiac nerd lawyer, uh Emmett Flood, Guy Petrilla to
Speaker 1: do that, who have great credibility with the special counsel,
Speaker 1: and they do that negotiating and then I have my
Speaker 1: blow hard guy, and my blow hard guy goes out
Speaker 1: on television MUCKs things up, look strong and you know
Speaker 1: sates the President's need to have someone go on TV
Speaker 1: defend him, and I guess that's totally possible. It's not
Speaker 1: the way, It's not the way I would do it
Speaker 1: or you guys would do it, but maybe that's the
Speaker 1: way it's done these days. I have one more question
Speaker 1: about Michael Cohen, and we can take it out if
Speaker 1: it's super stupid, but he's being investigated for I mean,
Speaker 1: is Michael Cohen being investigated for the collusion stuff, for
Speaker 1: the Stormy Daniel stuff or is there overlap? There's a
Speaker 1: stupid question all I think it's a smart question, And
Speaker 1: again I don't know. But the following things we know
Speaker 1: to be true. One is that Bob Mueller has an
Speaker 1: investigation that's focused on Russian interfering, meddling attack on our election,
Speaker 1: and then related to that, whether or not anyone on
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign UH knowingly help them write what people
Speaker 1: refer to informally as collusion. And third, whether or not
Speaker 1: there's been any obstruction and that so we know that
Speaker 1: to be true. The second thing we know to be
Speaker 1: true is that rather than retain whatever investigation or whatever
Speaker 1: bad things the mother folks found about Michael Cohen, they decided,
Speaker 1: in combination with Rod Rosenstein to separate that part out
Speaker 1: and give it to my old office, the Southern District,
Speaker 1: New York, which suggests that the things and the lawyers
Speaker 1: have made this point in a smart point and better
Speaker 1: for the president, which makes it appear that the things
Speaker 1: that are being looked at on the part of Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen by the Southern District are broader scope, separate from
Speaker 1: the president and have nothing to do with Russia. Now.
Speaker 1: The way the way, so that appears to be true
Speaker 1: on the surface, but the way the world works otherwise is,
Speaker 1: you know, there are humans who have multiple things going
Speaker 1: on in their head, and so may be true when
Speaker 1: this happens all the time that you take a look
Speaker 1: at one cooperating witness and then they flip. They don't
Speaker 1: just flip as to the you know, the taxi medallion issue,
Speaker 1: which is reportedly something that people are looking at, or
Speaker 1: you know, a particularly uh, you know, compartmentalized money laundering
Speaker 1: issue or some other fraud. You say to that person,
Speaker 1: what other bad things have you done? What other things
Speaker 1: do you know? And my presumption is if they end
Speaker 1: up flipping Michael Cohen and they find evidence of a crime,
Speaker 1: that they're going to ask him to plead guilty to
Speaker 1: with respect to his own business dealings, he will also
Speaker 1: be asked the question, we'll tell us about Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: tell us about the Trump organization, tell us about these
Speaker 1: payments to these women, whether or not they were related
Speaker 1: to the election, and that was the subject of this
Speaker 1: phone call. And if he has information about that stuff
Speaker 1: or dealings with the Russians, then that information is almost
Speaker 1: certainly going to be shared with Bob Mueller. So it's
Speaker 1: not completely compartmentalized, because the information in this human's head
Speaker 1: and Michael Cohen's head is not compartmentalized that way. So
Speaker 1: does Bob Mueller's team have access to all the material
Speaker 1: that was what would you say that was seized from
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen's office. So my guess is, I don't know
Speaker 1: what arrangement they've worked out, because you have competing jurisdictions
Speaker 1: all the time. My guess is that in assigning this
Speaker 1: portion of the case of the Southern District, it was
Speaker 1: made clear that if appropriate and as necessary, we need
Speaker 1: access to information to do our own job, then you
Speaker 1: will share that with us, and you will keep us
Speaker 1: in the loop in pushing that part of the case
Speaker 1: over to the Southern District. Do you think Muller is
Speaker 1: in any way preparing for the day that he's fired,
Speaker 1: or at least creating a contingency plan if Rosenstein is
Speaker 1: impeached or fired. Um, if he gets pushed out or
Speaker 1: neutered in some way, is he trying to create a
Speaker 1: kind of a living will for his investigations. I haven't
Speaker 1: heard it put that way. Let's go away putting it.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's his primary considered. Ryan went
Speaker 1: to law school, strated lawyer here, met too. Look at
Speaker 1: us doing podcasts now, Live in the Dream, Live in
Speaker 1: the Dream, you're not even in the studious managed to
Speaker 1: mailing it in from somewhere. Um. Look, I don't know
Speaker 1: that that's the primary motivation for why he's doing what
Speaker 1: he's doing. I think I think Mueller's primary motivation is
Speaker 1: to follow the facts and see what the truth is
Speaker 1: related to. That is to make sure as much as
Speaker 1: possible and consistent with his oath UM, that his investigation
Speaker 1: looks like it's coloring within the lines and staying within
Speaker 1: the lanes, and doesn't look like it's getting too far afield,
Speaker 1: so it has maximum legitimacy and credibility and so if
Speaker 1: they found something that seemed, you know, a little bit
Speaker 1: out of left field with Michael Cohen, I think it's
Speaker 1: more likely they were just trying to show when when
Speaker 1: later eyes are going to be looking at all this
Speaker 1: in hindsight, that they didn't agglomerate to themselves every possible
Speaker 1: crazy thing that anyone associate with Trump has ever done
Speaker 1: and sent it to the Southern District. It's probably nice, um,
Speaker 1: you know, benefit on the side for there to be
Speaker 1: multiple investigations going on in different places. So it's a
Speaker 1: sort of an incidental living Will you know that that
Speaker 1: case against the twelve military intelligence officials in Russia, the
Speaker 1: g r U, that's no longer with Mueller principally either.
Speaker 1: That was transferred to the National Security Division. So it
Speaker 1: is true what you're pointing out. I think it's a
Speaker 1: smart observation that things that have begun in the Mueller
Speaker 1: you know, um crucible, some of them are being parceled
Speaker 1: out to other places. It just makes it a lot
Speaker 1: harder to unring the bell. It's so gratifying to hear
Speaker 1: that there are so many interesting cases involving the president
Speaker 1: that can go on simultaneously. Well, when you make it
Speaker 1: a habit when you make it a habit of surrounding
Speaker 1: yourself with shady people who you who you know boastfully
Speaker 1: referred to as your fixer Um and boastfully you know,
Speaker 1: referred to as kings of dirty tricks with ether At,
Speaker 1: Roger Stone or Paul Manafort or Michael Cohen. It's not
Speaker 1: shocking that there's evidence of criminality in all those cases.
Speaker 1: Do you know Bob Muller and tell us about him
Speaker 1: and how you think he's handling himself in the case.
Speaker 1: So far so Bob Mueller. Anybody who's ever worked with
Speaker 1: him respects him, admires him. He's a guy before he
Speaker 1: became known to us here, served his country. He volunteered
Speaker 1: to go to Vietnam. You know, he had a privileged upbringing.
Speaker 1: He went to Princeton, he was a lacrosse star. And
Speaker 1: when when one of his lacrosse teammates after graduate of
Speaker 1: Princeton died in Vietnam, unlike some people you know home
Speaker 1: referring to he volunteered for service. Um was wounded in
Speaker 1: battle and spent basically his whole life in public service.
Speaker 1: Every time he was he's been offered something to do
Speaker 1: in public service, whether it's that's use attorney or chief
Speaker 1: of the Criminal Division or FBI director. He says, yes,
Speaker 1: he does it. He is at need all these jobs anymore.
Speaker 1: And but people forget you know, now you can swift
Speaker 1: and anybody, I guess you can take somebody who served
Speaker 1: his country, who is a Republican who has never been
Speaker 1: mismerged in anyway like this before, about whom new Gingrid
Speaker 1: said at the time of his appointment. Everyone can relax
Speaker 1: because Bob Mueller is a professional. You know, this is
Speaker 1: a guy who started serving as FBI director right before
Speaker 1: nine eleven, and when the ten year term expired, there
Speaker 1: are but three million people in the country. Rather than
Speaker 1: find someone who could then replace him, Barack Obama, who
Speaker 1: was of a different party than the president that appointed
Speaker 1: Bob Mueller in the first place, and the Congress got
Speaker 1: together and with a unanimous vote, rather than find some
Speaker 1: other person to replace Bob Mueller, they changed the law
Speaker 1: a hundred zero and extended his term for two years.
Speaker 1: So here's a person. No one's a god, and no
Speaker 1: one should be put on a pedestal unduly. But of
Speaker 1: anyone in the country who is in law enforcement, there's
Speaker 1: no one w had a better reputation than Bob Mueller. Now,
Speaker 1: how's he conducting myself himself? I think he's doing what
Speaker 1: he's always done. And in my observations of him, both
Speaker 1: as the United Attorney work with him as f BI Director,
Speaker 1: and then observing him separately, he doesn't talk to the press.
Speaker 1: He keeps his head down, he does his work. He's
Speaker 1: not afraid of anything, and he's not afraid of anyone,
Speaker 1: and he believes in public serving. Here's a guy who
Speaker 1: is back in private practice, who's know, not young in years,
Speaker 1: who accepted this task knowing the no matter what he
Speaker 1: did or decided or didn't do, that a large pertion
Speaker 1: of the population, you know, is going to cast dispersions
Speaker 1: on him. And I wrote a piece about him for
Speaker 1: Time magazine some weeks ago, and the bottom line is,
Speaker 1: you know, here's a person that that a lot of
Speaker 1: people like to pour their hopes and fears into. You know,
Speaker 1: he's either a savior for the progressive left or he's
Speaker 1: a villain to the Trump supporters. He's neither one of
Speaker 1: those things. He's I think, just to buy the book
Speaker 1: lawman who's trying to do a difficult job that he
Speaker 1: was given. I'm prepared to believe that he's going to
Speaker 1: have it, you know, a scathing report. I'm also prepared
Speaker 1: to believe that he will find something different. And my
Speaker 1: hope is that everyone accepts, no matter what side the
Speaker 1: aisle you're on, accepts whatever his findings and proposals are.
Speaker 1: Before we move on from the Trump administration or from
Speaker 1: the Trump investigation, I want to ask you one other question,
Speaker 1: which is you said earlier that collusion in and of
Speaker 1: itself is not necessarily a crime. Giuliani said something similar
Speaker 1: this morning on CNN. It's July, we're recording this, and
Speaker 1: then he had to call into Fox later today to
Speaker 1: clarify that statement, and he said, the President didn't do it,
Speaker 1: but even if he did, it wouldn't be a crime.
Speaker 1: Can you explain that concept of collusion not being a crime.
Speaker 1: And if collusion isn't a crime, what are we all
Speaker 1: doing here? So? I don't know where the word collusion
Speaker 1: came from. Initially, I think there are words in the
Speaker 1: English language. Is it a legal term? So it's not so,
Speaker 1: So that's the point I was about to make. There
Speaker 1: are certain terms that have both specialized legal meaning and
Speaker 1: also cloquial meaning. Right, um and collusion is not one
Speaker 1: that you see in the statute, you know, the statue
Speaker 1: to talk about conspiracy, that talk about aiding in a beading,
Speaker 1: to talk about acting in concert, but there's not one
Speaker 1: that that says collusion. It's a word that's sort of
Speaker 1: easy for people to understand that has a I think
Speaker 1: you think of colluding with the enemy. Yeah, and it
Speaker 1: has a connotation of dastardliness about it. But it's Natasha
Speaker 1: appropriate example, Kate, exactly who I think I've been indicted
Speaker 1: under seal I'm prepared to predict that. Um. So it's
Speaker 1: it's a shorthand way of talking about things that people
Speaker 1: talk about all the time. In the same way you
Speaker 1: say you know someone's a bad guy. That that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean as at mean that people are either subjects, targets
Speaker 1: or defendants, some bad guys and good guys. So it's
Speaker 1: a shorthand that people in the press use. The President
Speaker 1: is seized upon it to say that there is none
Speaker 1: of that which is neither here nor there. And now,
Speaker 1: because it's a shorthand term that has come into popular use, um,
Speaker 1: it's convenient for people to say it's not even there's
Speaker 1: no such thing which is why people like me like
Speaker 1: to say it doesn't have any specialized legal meaning. Um,
Speaker 1: but things that might constitute in ordinary parlance collusion can
Speaker 1: also constitute a crime. Right. So if you, for example,
Speaker 1: if it if it is true that these Russian gru
Speaker 1: operatives engaged in this hacking with the assistance of, and
Speaker 1: the knowledge of and or that maybe the direction of
Speaker 1: um people in America who are on the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: perhaps Roger Stone, who's meant who has alluded to in
Speaker 1: the indict but not charged yet, then that is both
Speaker 1: collusion in this sort of lay person's sense, and it's
Speaker 1: also potentially conspiracy. So you know, again, I don't think
Speaker 1: we make too much of this idea that collusion is
Speaker 1: not in the statute, you know, but they're they're conspiracy
Speaker 1: statutes that don't have the word collusion. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that things that would ordinarily constant collusion are not a crime. Yes, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: So it's really semantics we're talking about. And and a
Speaker 1: lot of people ask, what is taking Robert Muller so
Speaker 1: Long's it takes a long look? But people understand is
Speaker 1: it takes a long time to investigate things, in particular
Speaker 1: white color matters. These things take a few years. And
Speaker 1: it also depends on the scope. I mean, you've have
Speaker 1: multiple indictments, multiple guilty please, you have multiple charges against
Speaker 1: people in other countries, namely Russia that required not only investigation,
Speaker 1: getting information, but but the acquiring of classified information. You
Speaker 1: know that that last indictment against the g r U
Speaker 1: twelve is chock full of stuff that most surely very
Speaker 1: recently was classified. And there's a back and forth that
Speaker 1: has to happen with the intelligence community on sources and
Speaker 1: methods to see what you declassify for purposes of making
Speaker 1: an adequate indictment, and also to maybe send a message
Speaker 1: to their intel counterparts in Russia. When you investigate a
Speaker 1: financial crime, and presumably financial things are being investigated as well,
Speaker 1: sometimes evidence is in other countries. Sometimes evidence is at
Speaker 1: one bank and you get a subpoena return from that
Speaker 1: one bank, and you see the flow of money into
Speaker 1: an ad has happened all the time in cases that
Speaker 1: we investigated, and it takes a couple of months to
Speaker 1: get the subpoena return from the one bank account, and
Speaker 1: then you look and see, well what money was coming
Speaker 1: into that bank account, and then you got a subpoena.
Speaker 1: Those banks. So it's pains taking, painstaking, and especially when
Speaker 1: people are trying to conceal their crimes, crimes of money
Speaker 1: laundering in particular. That's all about having shell companies and
Speaker 1: having payments go from one entity to another. It takes
Speaker 1: a while to peal the the onion. How bizarre was
Speaker 1: it when you heard that Putin was inviting investigators to
Speaker 1: work with It was bizarre and scary. Although more scary
Speaker 1: and bizarre is that the President seemed to say, Hey,
Speaker 1: it sounds sounds like a great art, like a great idea,
Speaker 1: along with like the cyber force thing that they were
Speaker 1: going to do together. It was going to be impenetrable, though, prate,
Speaker 1: how could you object to that? Let's listen to this
Speaker 1: voice mail from a listener who is nice enough to
Speaker 1: send in a question. My name is Marian Demot. I
Speaker 1: live in Spring, Texas. If the results of Robert Miller's
Speaker 1: investigation shows that Trump illegally became president of the United States,
Speaker 1: what happens to all of the long he's done to
Speaker 1: us as a country and as a people. What happens
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton, who officially won the election? Thank you
Speaker 1: so thanks? Should I answered so thanks for the question,
Speaker 1: and I appreciate the sentiment. I don't believe that the
Speaker 1: presidency operates like um the Miss American pageant. If there
Speaker 1: was fraud on the part of the president in becoming
Speaker 1: the president, and that causes him to be removed from office,
Speaker 1: then it goes to Mike, goes to Mike Pence, And
Speaker 1: you know, the broader answer the question is, then I
Speaker 1: think it will remain for a lot of good people
Speaker 1: in the country to come together, get past it, to
Speaker 1: try to remedy a lot of bad things that may
Speaker 1: have been done. But it doesn't go to Hillary. Sorry.
Speaker 1: I recently interviewed James Comey. I know he's a friend
Speaker 1: and former colleague of yours. He would not give an inch.
Speaker 1: I was hoping we could break some news and AskMen
Speaker 1: about his actions during the two thousand sixteen campaign, including
Speaker 1: the letter he sent eleven days before the election. Do
Speaker 1: you think he has a fair argument and despite your friendship,
Speaker 1: do you think he should just say I screwed up? Look,
Speaker 1: you know he's a smart guy, and I worked for him,
Speaker 1: and I worked alongside him when he was the Deputy
Speaker 1: Trained General, and I worked in the Senate. Friendship aside, No, no,
Speaker 1: So he can say what he wants to say. Um,
Speaker 1: I would have done it differently. And if he believes
Speaker 1: that what he did was right, then he has a
Speaker 1: right to say that and right to defend himself. What
Speaker 1: would you have done? I wouldn't have sent that letter.
Speaker 1: I thought the letter was a mistake, and I think
Speaker 1: a lot of I think most people think the letter
Speaker 1: was a mistake. UM, I understand. I mean the best
Speaker 1: I can do when talking about other people's errors. Who
Speaker 1: I think we're operating in good faith. I don't think
Speaker 1: he was trying to sway the election. I don't think
Speaker 1: he was acting out of partisan interests. I don't think
Speaker 1: he had an ax to grind with anybody. He looked at,
Speaker 1: you know, a difficult decision tree, and as he keeps saying,
Speaker 1: you know, there was that the two doors, And I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know that I fully buy that, but but
Speaker 1: what I do believe is that he was trying to
Speaker 1: make the best decision that he could make. I think
Speaker 1: it was the wrong decision. And I think you can
Speaker 1: judge people based on their decision making, both on um,
Speaker 1: the wisdom of the decision, but also on the intent
Speaker 1: behind the decision. And sometimes people make a mistake of judgment,
Speaker 1: which I think this was uh and some of the
Speaker 1: people can make a mistake both of judgment and of
Speaker 1: and of good faith, or doing something for nefarious purpose.
Speaker 1: I think he was trying very hard to save the
Speaker 1: reputation of the FBI or defend the reputation of the FBI.
Speaker 1: I think in the longer run, it's arguable that he
Speaker 1: did it more harm than good. And I think the
Speaker 1: problem with that letter h is that it was on
Speaker 1: the eve of the election. Yes, and you know, I
Speaker 1: remember I was a little bit of a unique position
Speaker 1: to know before the world did, what the consequence of
Speaker 1: the letter would be, insofar as the laptop was in
Speaker 1: the custody of you know, my folks, the FBI, as
Speaker 1: we were working with the Anthony Weiner laptop, because we
Speaker 1: were investigating Anthony Winer for these other you know, sex
Speaker 1: abuse related CRIMEO, sexual enticement, crimes of a minor, and
Speaker 1: so we knew among a small group of people that
Speaker 1: nobody yet was aware of what was on the laptop.
Speaker 1: So the sending of the letter indicated a legitimately and
Speaker 1: naturally to a lot of people, including political opponents of
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, that there must be something damaging, because why
Speaker 1: would you otherwise sort of a vicious circle. The fact
Speaker 1: that you wish with the letter must indicate that there's
Speaker 1: something very damning on the laptop. And I don't think
Speaker 1: people appreciated when they saw the letter, and and for
Speaker 1: their own political reason, I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: acted badly after they got the letter, um, because it
Speaker 1: was in their political interest to make hay of it.
Speaker 1: But I think one should have anticipated that that was
Speaker 1: going to happen, and it might have been the better
Speaker 1: course to wait and see if the stuff in the
Speaker 1: laptop was redundant, irrelevant, um, you know, unnecessary, you know,
Speaker 1: to affect the investigation, all of which turned out to
Speaker 1: be so. And why couldn't he have put as many
Speaker 1: agents as possible on that to comb through those emails
Speaker 1: and to do nothing until he had the information he
Speaker 1: needed to move ahead or not. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't know did have the power to do that, right?
Speaker 1: I think everything relating to how the information on the
Speaker 1: laptop was exploited, a lot of things relating to that, um,
Speaker 1: you know, we're not wonderful. I'm looking at this a
Speaker 1: very long Inspector General report on the issue of what
Speaker 1: happened with that laptop and how much time it took
Speaker 1: to ask for the information on the laptop? Right right,
Speaker 1: my office is in the I report to the extent
Speaker 1: that you know, we were staying in our lane and
Speaker 1: focusing on the Anthony Weiner, you know, potential criminal case,
Speaker 1: and we're a little bit surprised that nobody was doing
Speaker 1: anything more quickly to exploit and look at the emails
Speaker 1: in the laptop. A lot of people have asked for
Speaker 1: would you run for office? Are you asking? Is that
Speaker 1: a statement? Now? It's a statement and then it's a quizzical. Look.
Speaker 1: So I thought about running for a train general and
Speaker 1: I've announced on the podcasts this week that I'm not
Speaker 1: h there's an open seat, and you know they're they're
Speaker 1: good people who are running for that position. Look, I
Speaker 1: think I think public office is important. Um. I enjoyed
Speaker 1: having the appointed position that I had. I think there's
Speaker 1: a lot of good that can be done, you know,
Speaker 1: I think doing things from the outside which I'm learning about.
Speaker 1: And I have this great task force with Governor Chrissy
Speaker 1: Todd Whitman and the Brennan Center, which hopes to restore
Speaker 1: institutions of democracy and I have other things planned. The
Speaker 1: question about serving in office requires first a stomach for
Speaker 1: an appetite four and a thick enough skin for um,
Speaker 1: what it takes to get to office, which is campaigning,
Speaker 1: which also requires depending on the jurisdiction you're in, a
Speaker 1: lot of I think fundraising and some people can do it,
Speaker 1: and some people like it less. I tend to like
Speaker 1: it less. I think there are ways to do it.
Speaker 1: I'll think about that for the future. So you haven't
Speaker 1: closed the door on the As what I've said often, UM,
Speaker 1: is it politics is not my cup of tea. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, being a judge is not my cup of tea. Um.
Speaker 1: What I like doing more than anything else was being
Speaker 1: aligned prosecutor and being the U. S. Attorney for the
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York, which I think is one
Speaker 1: of the purest forms of public service. Um. You could
Speaker 1: remain independent. You didn't know anything to anybody, you didn't
Speaker 1: have to ask anybody for nicol, and you got to
Speaker 1: get up every morning and do the right thing. Some
Speaker 1: of these other jobs are not like that, and certainly
Speaker 1: the path to these other jobs is not like that.
Speaker 1: Which is not that I have great faith in respect
Speaker 1: for people who throw their hat in the ring, and
Speaker 1: I've supported some of those people. There are people who
Speaker 1: worked for me who running for office and who worked
Speaker 1: alongside me who running for office, and I've supported them
Speaker 1: and gone to fundraisers for them. At this moment, it
Speaker 1: just doesn't seem to be for me. I'm getting frantic
Speaker 1: messages on my computers. Pre needs to leave, and uh, Pre,
Speaker 1: will you come back and to us anytime? It's really
Speaker 1: it's a real pleasure, and I think you should reconsider
Speaker 1: your decision not to run for office because we need smart,
Speaker 1: engage people like you. And you know, I think it's
Speaker 1: now more than ever we have to have people who
Speaker 1: have the courage to to be the men and women
Speaker 1: in the arena, as Teddy Roosevelt would say. Pleasure being
Speaker 1: on stay tuned with Katie and Brown. Thank you, Brian,
Speaker 1: now that we've made Pre late for his next appointment.
Speaker 1: You know, there was so much speculation about his running
Speaker 1: for office when he left the U. S. Attorney's Office.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised that he decided met not for me?
Speaker 1: A little bit? Either? The natural job for him would
Speaker 1: have been Attorney General of New York and it's an
Speaker 1: and seat and there are a number of people running.
Speaker 1: He would have had as good a shot as anyone.
Speaker 1: But ultimately I'd take him at his word that he
Speaker 1: decided he didn't want to go through the rigors of
Speaker 1: running for office. And and this is really kind of
Speaker 1: a sad thing, isn't it, Because so many people are
Speaker 1: being kept from public service because of how nasty politics
Speaker 1: have become. Well, you know, and this is gonna be
Speaker 1: a weird thing for me to say, but blame the voters. Um,
Speaker 1: it's gotten really hard because you know, if you can
Speaker 1: dig up dirt on your opponent, if you can catch
Speaker 1: you know, a politician in an embarrassing moment, the voters
Speaker 1: respond to that, and therefore the incentive is to to
Speaker 1: do it. And and politics has gotten really ugly and
Speaker 1: a lot of good people aren't running for office as
Speaker 1: a result. The other the other factor is of course fundraising. Well,
Speaker 1: I think he's obviously doesn't have a stomach for that either. Well,
Speaker 1: a lot of members of Congress spend more than half
Speaker 1: their time raising money dialing for dollars instead of studying
Speaker 1: the issue US and meeting with constituents and all the rest,
Speaker 1: which only shows how important campaign finance reform is right
Speaker 1: for sure. I agree with you, but I don't think
Speaker 1: there's any appetite right now to do serious campaign finance reform.
Speaker 1: And I hate to end the show on such a
Speaker 1: low note, but I think that's the truth. Well that
Speaker 1: does it for us, everyone. A big thank you to
Speaker 1: our producer Gianna Palmer, our assistant producer Nora Richie, and
Speaker 1: our audio engineer in New York, Jared O'Connell. Thanks also
Speaker 1: to Jordan Duffy for engineering my part of the conversation
Speaker 1: from l A today. A big thanks to my assistant,
Speaker 1: the incomparable Beth Demas. You can only imagine what she
Speaker 1: has to put up with in folks, join me and
Speaker 1: Brian and our whole team, and wishing a big thank
Speaker 1: you and fond farewell to our social media maybn Alison Bresnik.
Speaker 1: She is on to new adventures in La La Lands.
Speaker 1: So Brian, you'll have to meet up with Alison as
Speaker 1: she starts her new life on the Left coast as
Speaker 1: they say, Yeah, we're gonna be going to a sprays
Speaker 1: handing salon tomorrow together, so it's very exciting for us both.
Speaker 1: Maybe you guys can schedule a mutual waxing. Oh Wow,
Speaker 1: I hadn't even thought of that great idea, Katie. Anyway,
Speaker 1: for better or worse, we are the show's executive producers.
Speaker 1: Mark Phillips wrote our theme music. I'm sorry I thought
Speaker 1: that was funny. And a word of warning for the
Speaker 1: rest of August will be on a summer breaks. You're
Speaker 1: gonna miss this witty rep our day I do. Everyone.
Speaker 1: This means we won't be releasing new episodes, but we
Speaker 1: are going to revisit some of our favorite conversations. We
Speaker 1: might even throw in a surprise or two, so don't worry.
Speaker 1: You won't have to miss us too much. And as
Speaker 1: NBC used to say when they would do summer reruns,
Speaker 1: if you haven't seen it, it's new to you, so
Speaker 1: hopefully check out some of the podcasts that you might
Speaker 1: have missed. They're all oldies, bud goodies, everyone kind of
Speaker 1: like me anyway. As always, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: listening everyone, and enjoy the rest of your summer. Talk
Speaker 1: to you soon. Bye bye.