Speaker 1: Jared Kushner, President Trump's son in law and close advisor,
Speaker 1: faced questioning from congressional investigators for the first time today.
Speaker 1: In his prepared statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kushner said, quote,
Speaker 1: I did not collude nor know of anyone else in
Speaker 1: the campaign who colluded with any foreign government. Kushner confirmed
Speaker 1: for contacts with Russians during his father in law's presidential
Speaker 1: campaign in the transition, but he described the encounters as
Speaker 1: un memorable. We're going to go live in a few
Speaker 1: minutes to Jared Kushner as he speaks and makes a
Speaker 1: statement to the press outside the White House. Our guests
Speaker 1: are Nato Mariotti, partner at Thompson Cockburn, and Andrew Wright,
Speaker 1: professor at Savannah Law School. Renato, let's start with the arrangement.
Speaker 1: Why is Kushner, at his request, not being questioned under
Speaker 1: oath and what impact does that have on using what
Speaker 1: he said? Well, it's it's it's not uncommon for witnesses
Speaker 1: to be permitted to give an interview that's not in public, uh,
Speaker 1: and that's not under oath. And the reason that Congressional
Speaker 1: committees do that is because it is a crime to
Speaker 1: lie to congress regardless of whether you're under oath or not.
Speaker 1: And so Congress UM I think feels comfortable with that,
Speaker 1: you know, with having an off the record interview for
Speaker 1: that reason. I think it has other advantages as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, when there's a public uh interview that is
Speaker 1: excuse me, a public testimony that is under oath, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, members of the committee can be more focused
Speaker 1: on what the political um appearance of their questioning might
Speaker 1: be as opposed to actually getting the job done and
Speaker 1: asking questions that will generate the evidence that the committee
Speaker 1: needs going forward. Andrew, let's talk a bit about the
Speaker 1: substance of what Mr Kushner said, at least a prepared
Speaker 1: statement UM that he gave to Congress. He described a
Speaker 1: number of meetings that with various different people with some
Speaker 1: contract of the Russian government. Is this the sort of
Speaker 1: you know, the way he paints it is it is
Speaker 1: this this sort of activity one would expect from campaign
Speaker 1: officials to be having with a foreign government during the
Speaker 1: course of a presidential campaign. I think it's pretty clear
Speaker 1: that the Russian government was trying to curry favor and
Speaker 1: perhaps infiltrate the Trump campaign. I think UM plenty of
Speaker 1: UM folks on presidential campaigns. I've worked on one or
Speaker 1: two as well. UM find this um number of meetings
Speaker 1: and the and the nature of some of them to
Speaker 1: be abnormal. UM. Certainly, you know, one would expect that
Speaker 1: during a transition period there would be some contacts with
Speaker 1: foreign governments UM trying to establish relations with the incoming president.
Speaker 1: But I do think that the nature of the contact
Speaker 1: UH is a little bit strange. And you know, my
Speaker 1: colleagues in the Obama administration suggested that they certainly didn't
Speaker 1: have any meetings that were analogous to these during the
Speaker 1: campaigns in two thousand eight or Nado. One of the
Speaker 1: meetings that people have been talking about a lot is
Speaker 1: the one that Donald Trump Jr. And Paul Maniford and
Speaker 1: Kushner attended UM with and the list keeps growing of
Speaker 1: who was there. So he completely downplayed his attendance at
Speaker 1: that meeting, said he didn't even know what it was about.
Speaker 1: That he asked his assistant to get him out of
Speaker 1: there in an email. Did that work as far as
Speaker 1: what you saw? Well, first of all, at the starting point,
Speaker 1: I think it's important to note that you know, as
Speaker 1: you did, that he is trying to distance himself from that,
Speaker 1: from what happened there, and more importantly, from knowing what
Speaker 1: the purpose of the meeting was and who he was
Speaker 1: meeting with. And I think it's important for a couple
Speaker 1: of reasons. One, it shows that his attorneys realized that
Speaker 1: it's problematic legally, UH to be at a meeting for
Speaker 1: the purpose of seeking aid from a foreign government. Um.
Speaker 1: But separate and apart from that, it also he is
Speaker 1: an important thing for him because he needs to disclose
Speaker 1: his contacts with foreign government since the extent he thought
Speaker 1: that this was a representative of foreign government that would
Speaker 1: need to be disclosed. Um. But was it effective. I thought,
Speaker 1: you know, it looked like he was trying to provide
Speaker 1: um excuses and you know, to get around what I
Speaker 1: think is a very obvious piece of evidence that he
Speaker 1: did know what was gonna happened in that meeting, which
Speaker 1: is an email that was directed to him. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's saying he didn't read it and he didn't read
Speaker 1: it carefully. UM. And it's not an uncommon thing to
Speaker 1: have happened when there's a criminal investigation, is that people um,
Speaker 1: you know, don't read um you know well allege that
Speaker 1: they haven't read emails that are problematic. I will say,
Speaker 1: obviously Mr Krishner is a wealthy person and very busy
Speaker 1: and has a lot of responsibilities, and um, the burden
Speaker 1: would ultimately be on the government to prove that he
Speaker 1: knew what the government is going to allege she knew
Speaker 1: when he took that meeting. Well, Andrew, let's also talk
Speaker 1: about another meeting that was discussed in his statement was
Speaker 1: a meeting he had with a a Russian banker named
Speaker 1: Sergey Gorkov, who's the head of a state owned Russian
Speaker 1: bank and allied with President Putin of Russia. Um, And
Speaker 1: according to Mr Krishner's statement, they didn't talk about sanctions
Speaker 1: on Russia at all. And they also didn't talk about
Speaker 1: any loans or banking that Mr Krishner's private business has had.
Speaker 1: And so, you know, I wonder how, you know, investigators
Speaker 1: are going to look at a statement like that about
Speaker 1: us with a you know, about what he would have
Speaker 1: discussed with this banker. Yeah, well, first of all, it's
Speaker 1: kind of an extraordinary meeting. When I was reading his
Speaker 1: prepared statement, my eyes kind of jumped out of my
Speaker 1: head when I saw that it was the Russian ambassador
Speaker 1: who arranged that meeting, was quite insistent, according to Kushner,
Speaker 1: about having that taking that meeting, and that the Russian
Speaker 1: banker was described as, um, you know, very close to
Speaker 1: President Putin. So the you know, I'm not sure what
Speaker 1: work it does to suggest that, you know, that that
Speaker 1: there was some sort of distance. Um, this was clearly
Speaker 1: a Russian government operation. He even brought him a painting
Speaker 1: of his you know, family's hometown in Belarus, So it's
Speaker 1: quite coordinated. Um. So you know, in terms of his
Speaker 1: statement about no sanctions, clearly Russian government is quite interested
Speaker 1: in sanctions. And so you know, that would be one
Speaker 1: of those things that we'd have to test Kushner's credibility
Speaker 1: about whether that was done. Um, it's hard to imagine
Speaker 1: that it was just purely pleasantries if the ambassador was
Speaker 1: so insistent about having the meeting in the first place.
Speaker 1: The other point I'll just make is that Kushner now
Speaker 1: owns those statements for all future investigative activity. He's now
Speaker 1: said declaratively that there were no personal business dealings discussed
Speaker 1: and that there were no ancients discussed, So he will
Speaker 1: have to stand behind that from now on. And also, Renato,
Speaker 1: this was not in his statement, But last week he
Speaker 1: filed an amended financial disclosure that included seventy seven items
Speaker 1: worth at least ten million dollars that were described as
Speaker 1: quote inadvertently omitted from a March filing. The disclosure has
Speaker 1: been revised thirty nine times since its initial filing on
Speaker 1: March nine. Can you make an excuse after it's the
Speaker 1: thirty ninth time or at thirty seven or well, look
Speaker 1: it is always it's evidence. So what the government has
Speaker 1: to prove is that the omissions were knowing and willful, Okay,
Speaker 1: So in other words, that it was something that he
Speaker 1: did on purpose, essentially, you know, showing that he had
Speaker 1: an intend to deceive or you know, or intend to
Speaker 1: um an intend to mislead the government or hi what
Speaker 1: he was doing from the government as opposed to really
Speaker 1: making a mistake or or something like that. The the
Speaker 1: number of times that you revised to form is certainly
Speaker 1: one piece of evidence that the government is going to
Speaker 1: use to show that he knowingly and willfully made those omissions. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, what his camp is going to be saying,
Speaker 1: and the defense would say, is that he's a very
Speaker 1: sloppy person, a very disorganized person, a very busy person.
Speaker 1: He's got a big staff. Maybe they're sloppy, maybe they're disorganized. Um. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the number of omissions are an important piece of evidence.
Speaker 1: I think the other you know, you know, piece of
Speaker 1: evidence that you would be looking at is you know,
Speaker 1: what what were the omissions of and what what was
Speaker 1: he omitting? And you know, if, for example, some of
Speaker 1: the later revisions included meetings that were more and more problematic,
Speaker 1: that might go to suggest that those revisions were done
Speaker 1: with the intent to hide from the government as opposed
Speaker 1: to merely uh, a clerical oversight. Well speaking Andrew of
Speaker 1: you know, how people are going to assess the arguments
Speaker 1: and statements in here and in One of the things
Speaker 1: that I thought was interesting about the statement is that
Speaker 1: there's a sort of bold faced statement about Um that
Speaker 1: the thing that's gotten a lot of publicity, which is
Speaker 1: whether or not Mr Kushner was trying to set up
Speaker 1: some secret back channel communications with the with the Russian government.
Speaker 1: And he says that the fact that he was trying
Speaker 1: to start a dialogue on that with the Russian government
Speaker 1: after election day should be viewed as strong evidence that
Speaker 1: he was not aware of one that existed before election day,
Speaker 1: So is that, Um, you know, is that argument going
Speaker 1: to be persuasive to people? Well, one of the things
Speaker 1: to note is that Kushner doesn't have and his lawyers
Speaker 1: don't have access to all the facts because and presumably
Speaker 1: the Intelligence Committee will have access to the signals, intelligence
Speaker 1: and other things that might lead to contradictions to that statement.
Speaker 1: We've been talking about Ared Kushner's a testimony today after
Speaker 1: not testimony, but questioning from congressional investigators for the first
Speaker 1: time today, and um, that was not one under oath.
Speaker 1: We've been talking with Ernato Mariotti, partner at Thompson Cockburn
Speaker 1: and Andrew Wright, professor at Savannah Law School. Andrew, we
Speaker 1: just heard a very very short statement, no questions from
Speaker 1: Jared Kushner. What was your reaction? I think it was
Speaker 1: just a top line, blanket denial, and it will give
Speaker 1: the media some sound and camera video to run with
Speaker 1: today on the story. It will be very interesting to
Speaker 1: see if there are any leaks or characterizations by members
Speaker 1: of the Senate Intelligence Committee about how that meeting went
Speaker 1: later in the day. So I look forward to seeing
Speaker 1: the story developed throughout the day as we get more information. Bernano,
Speaker 1: he mentioned he'll be talking to House investigators. How long
Speaker 1: do we expect that he's going to be questioned for well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think he may be questioned for hours
Speaker 1: by both by ultimately both committees, and I doubt that
Speaker 1: this is going to be the last time that Mr
Speaker 1: Krishner's gonna ask questions. So I thought Andy brought up
Speaker 1: a good point when he said that ultimately, uh Krishner
Speaker 1: is going to have locked himself into a certain set
Speaker 1: of facts here, and that's you know, you know what
Speaker 1: why the the statement was so carefully worded. I think
Speaker 1: you know, of all the people swirled up in this investigation,
Speaker 1: the person whose legal strategy I've been mostly impressed with
Speaker 1: has been Jared Kushner's because he's stayed off Twitter and
Speaker 1: stayed off radio and TV shows and is very careful,
Speaker 1: been very careful about what he says to the press,
Speaker 1: and it's generally always been through lawyers. This is the
Speaker 1: first time we've heard in his own words an account
Speaker 1: of what's happened, and ultimately he'll he'll be he'll be
Speaker 1: held to that in future. Questioning Andrew, how smart is
Speaker 1: it that he had a closed door meeting but he
Speaker 1: put out a statement, and now he makes a statement
Speaker 1: before before the cameras which reiterates what he said, so
Speaker 1: he as his his message out there. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: he's generally getting to drive the message today on game day. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, obviously the fact that he's doing the interview
Speaker 1: is going to dredge up all the previous reporting and
Speaker 1: that'll get re recited in the news cycles today. But
Speaker 1: he's getting to put his spin on and that was
Speaker 1: really one of the chief benefits of negotiating to a
Speaker 1: private interview for him, um, rather than a public hearing.
Speaker 1: But on the committee side, they get a lot of
Speaker 1: benefits out of this. They've now locked him into certain statements,
Speaker 1: and they haven't given up any of their prerogative to
Speaker 1: be able to bring him back under subpoena voluntarily to
Speaker 1: testify in front of the committee um and in front
Speaker 1: of the public. So I think both sides came away
Speaker 1: um as a legal matter with some benefit to this,
Speaker 1: And Jared Kushner's media strategy is at the center from
Speaker 1: his side of that negotiation. NATO. UM. So just in
Speaker 1: terms of how this will proceed, You've got the special counsel,
Speaker 1: you've got the committees. Once they get these statements from
Speaker 1: Kushner and others under oath, where where does it go
Speaker 1: from here? So not under Earth, I should say where
Speaker 1: does it go now? So I would expect that that
Speaker 1: Mueller's team will be, you know, has already been, you know,
Speaker 1: giving regular reports to Congress about what they're doing and
Speaker 1: coordinating with Congress so that this way there's no um,
Speaker 1: there's no way in which either of the investigations are
Speaker 1: undermining the others so that they can work in concert.
Speaker 1: I know there have been public reports that have suggested
Speaker 1: just that. Uh. And and frankly, from what I've seen
Speaker 1: to you know, the Congressional committees have been very deferential
Speaker 1: of Mueller and the investigation that he's doing. So what
Speaker 1: I would expect is that this interview before Congress would
Speaker 1: be before Congressional committee, would be a piece of evidence
Speaker 1: that Mueller would use. I expect that at some point
Speaker 1: in the future, Mueller will be potentially, you know, seeking
Speaker 1: interviews with many others, uh, including Mr Kushner, and it'll
Speaker 1: be interesting to see if they agree to sit for
Speaker 1: an interview with him. He may try to compel testimony
Speaker 1: before a grand jury. UH. And ultimately that process can
Speaker 1: can take you many months to unfold Andrew. So now
Speaker 1: we're back to Muller and the investigation, and that leads
Speaker 1: us to President Trump and some of his tweets over
Speaker 1: the weekend. The Washington Post reported last week that he's
Speaker 1: been discussing pardons for his aids and even for himself.
Speaker 1: On Saturday, he tweeted that quote, while all agree, the
Speaker 1: US president has the complete power to pardon, so that's
Speaker 1: certainly an overstatement if the president includes himself in that
Speaker 1: pardon power. Is there any indication in the Constitution, in
Speaker 1: the case law, or anywhere that the president can pardon himself? Well,
Speaker 1: it's a slightly trickier question than I'd like it to be,
Speaker 1: to be quite honest. It's the Constitution clearly limits pardon
Speaker 1: power in cases of impeachment, and it clearly only applies
Speaker 1: to federal offenses. Is the question of whether the pardon
Speaker 1: the president can pardon himself? Um? I think is something
Speaker 1: that the Framers didn't probably devent devote a lot of
Speaker 1: time too, because it was such an absurd notion. UM.
Speaker 1: The OLC, Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice issued an opinion UH several days before Nixon resigned,
Speaker 1: indicating that it was not permissible or constitutional for the
Speaker 1: president to issue a pardon for himself on the theory
Speaker 1: that no man can be a judge in his own case,
Speaker 1: which is a natural law theory. Others have argued that
Speaker 1: it would violate the structure of the Constitution. Some have
Speaker 1: made a textual argument that the idea of the president
Speaker 1: granting a pardon requires two parties to that transaction. Therefore
Speaker 1: he can't be both the pardoner and the pardon me.
Speaker 1: I think that has the better side of the argument,
Speaker 1: but there are a lot of scholars on the other
Speaker 1: side and legal commentators who believe that there is no
Speaker 1: limitation it would have to be expressed, and that the
Speaker 1: president might have the power to do it as a
Speaker 1: political matter or as a matter of stewardship of our
Speaker 1: government that's supposed to be a nation of laws rather
Speaker 1: than individual leaders. I think it would be quite absurd,
Speaker 1: and I would hope, uh that there would be such
Speaker 1: a violent political reaction um that that would not be
Speaker 1: permitted by any sitting president. We're not knowing about thirty
Speaker 1: seconds we have left. At what point might we see
Speaker 1: the president seriously considering pardons for other members of the
Speaker 1: administration beside himself. I think it would only be when
Speaker 1: they are in very serious legal jeopardy, so until one.
Speaker 1: One thing you need to understand about pardons is that
Speaker 1: they extinguish your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself.
Speaker 1: So um, there you know. It may be for right now,
Speaker 1: it's in the it's in the president's interest to have
Speaker 1: certain people not before to testify about topics that might
Speaker 1: be problematic. As soon as he gives that that pardon,
Speaker 1: than than that person loses that right and would be
Speaker 1: held in contempt if they refuse to testify. So I
Speaker 1: expect him to do so at the last possible moment.
Speaker 1: Thank you all for being on Bloomberg Law. It has
Speaker 1: been a fascinating discussion. That's Renato Mariotti. He's a partner
Speaker 1: at Thompson Colburne and Andrew Wright, professor at Savannah Law School.