1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,680
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The latest bombshell

6
00:00:22,760 --> 00:00:25,520
Speaker 1: in the Michael Cohen saga maybe the most surprising of

7
00:00:25,560 --> 00:00:28,760
Speaker 1: all because it draws several fortune five hundred companies into

8
00:00:28,800 --> 00:00:31,680
Speaker 1: a shady scenario. A T and T paid at least

9
00:00:31,720 --> 00:00:34,560
Speaker 1: two hundred thousand dollars to affirm established by co and

10
00:00:34,720 --> 00:00:37,960
Speaker 1: Essential Consultants, which paid the hush money to adult film

11
00:00:38,040 --> 00:00:42,639
Speaker 1: star Stormy Daniels. No Vartis, a major pharmaceutical company, has

12
00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:45,080
Speaker 1: just admitted that it paid a total of one point

13
00:00:45,080 --> 00:00:48,640
Speaker 1: two million dollars to Cohen. On ABC's This Week, President

14
00:00:48,640 --> 00:00:52,200
Speaker 1: Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani said that Trump had reimbursed Cohen

15
00:00:52,280 --> 00:00:55,880
Speaker 1: through a monthly retainer. Even if it was considered a

16
00:00:55,920 --> 00:00:59,760
Speaker 1: campaign contribution, it was entirely reimbursed out of personal funds.

17
00:01:00,440 --> 00:01:03,440
Speaker 1: A company tied to a Russian oligarch also paid half

18
00:01:03,440 --> 00:01:06,600
Speaker 1: a million dollars to the same firm established by Cohen.

19
00:01:06,959 --> 00:01:09,680
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bob Bower, White House counsel for President

20
00:01:09,720 --> 00:01:12,000
Speaker 1: Obama and a professor at n y U Law School.

21
00:01:12,560 --> 00:01:15,120
Speaker 1: Bob they say, follow the money, and that appears to

22
00:01:15,120 --> 00:01:17,959
Speaker 1: be what the Special Council is doing. Where on the

23
00:01:18,040 --> 00:01:21,480
Speaker 1: scale of revelations is this latest news in terms of

24
00:01:21,600 --> 00:01:25,160
Speaker 1: damage to Trump and Cohen? Of course, we've had so

25
00:01:25,200 --> 00:01:27,920
Speaker 1: many revelations and sort of grading them in significance as

26
00:01:27,920 --> 00:01:32,000
Speaker 1: a challenge. This is a significant development. It puts Michael

27
00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:36,160
Speaker 1: Cohen with this account in transactions with the Russian government

28
00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:39,600
Speaker 1: over the same period, assuming of Russian oligarch, someone with

29
00:01:39,640 --> 00:01:43,520
Speaker 1: a close tie to President Putin, over the same period

30
00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:48,120
Speaker 1: that he's receiving reimbursements quote unquote from the President for

31
00:01:49,080 --> 00:01:53,040
Speaker 1: the Stormy Daniels matter and apparently also, as Mr Giuliani said,

32
00:01:53,160 --> 00:01:56,800
Speaker 1: quote unquote incidentals. So it opens up a whole host

33
00:01:56,840 --> 00:02:00,320
Speaker 1: of questions about how that account was used, what the

34
00:02:00,360 --> 00:02:03,680
Speaker 1: President understood about the use of that account. It is

35
00:02:03,800 --> 00:02:07,440
Speaker 1: I think definitely a development of some significance in this case.

36
00:02:07,960 --> 00:02:11,160
Speaker 1: What's more surprising to me at this point is the

37
00:02:11,160 --> 00:02:14,120
Speaker 1: payments by A T and T and novartists. A T

38
00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:16,919
Speaker 1: and T said it paid co and in early seventeen

39
00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:21,480
Speaker 1: to provide insights into understanding the new administration, and they

40
00:02:21,520 --> 00:02:24,320
Speaker 1: also wanted guidance on how Trump would respond to its

41
00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:27,480
Speaker 1: plan to acquire time Warner. According to a person briefed

42
00:02:27,560 --> 00:02:30,919
Speaker 1: on the matter, what do you make of this arrangement

43
00:02:31,040 --> 00:02:37,000
Speaker 1: with Cohen for insights? There are some questions that I

44
00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:40,280
Speaker 1: think ultimately will be asked, and our understanding of this

45
00:02:40,360 --> 00:02:43,440
Speaker 1: will depend on the answers about what exactly Michael Kohen

46
00:02:43,800 --> 00:02:46,840
Speaker 1: was offering and ultimately what he delivered, And that's absent

47
00:02:46,919 --> 00:02:51,480
Speaker 1: right now from these UH News reports. We could expect

48
00:02:51,520 --> 00:02:56,000
Speaker 1: probably more information in the future. Of course, organizations that

49
00:02:56,040 --> 00:02:59,119
Speaker 1: have interests in public policy very often look for people

50
00:02:59,160 --> 00:03:01,440
Speaker 1: who can provide sites, and they will frequently look for

51
00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:05,520
Speaker 1: people who are associated and knowledgeable about public officials for

52
00:03:05,560 --> 00:03:09,480
Speaker 1: those insights. Obviously, Michael Cohene is not known as a

53
00:03:09,520 --> 00:03:12,720
Speaker 1: lobbyist or a strategic thinker, only as somebody with a

54
00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:16,800
Speaker 1: close personal and professional relationship with the president in some

55
00:03:16,880 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 1: sort of quasi legal representational capacity. And so the question

56
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:22,560
Speaker 1: is what did he say he would do and what

57
00:03:22,639 --> 00:03:25,400
Speaker 1: in fact did he do? And those are questions um

58
00:03:26,120 --> 00:03:28,600
Speaker 1: quite frankly, like the question about the purposes of the

59
00:03:28,639 --> 00:03:32,000
Speaker 1: Russian oligarch payments that are going to eventually be asked

60
00:03:32,040 --> 00:03:35,200
Speaker 1: and answered because they said in their statement that he

61
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:38,040
Speaker 1: did no legal or lobbying work for them. So what

62
00:03:38,200 --> 00:03:42,520
Speaker 1: really does that leave I suppose the reference to insights

63
00:03:42,520 --> 00:03:46,400
Speaker 1: suggests that they were trying to understand Donald Trump's approach

64
00:03:46,480 --> 00:03:49,360
Speaker 1: to particular public policy questions that they were interested in.

65
00:03:49,600 --> 00:03:51,440
Speaker 1: That's the most that I can gather from the press

66
00:03:51,520 --> 00:03:54,360
Speaker 1: reports so far. So we seem to be learning over

67
00:03:54,400 --> 00:03:58,160
Speaker 1: and over again how far the Mueller investigation has gone

68
00:03:58,200 --> 00:04:02,560
Speaker 1: already Because he was talking to nov artists or his

69
00:04:02,560 --> 00:04:06,840
Speaker 1: his investigators were last November. So are we seeing a

70
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:15,600
Speaker 1: bigger picture of why this investigation is so important? Investigation

71
00:04:15,760 --> 00:04:18,400
Speaker 1: is very important. Just go back. I think we can

72
00:04:18,440 --> 00:04:21,320
Speaker 1: all remember the letter of appointment issued by a Deputy

73
00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:25,479
Speaker 1: Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. This inquiry had bottom. The Special

74
00:04:25,520 --> 00:04:29,800
Speaker 1: Council's inquiry is about an extraordinary set of concerns about

75
00:04:29,880 --> 00:04:33,480
Speaker 1: Russian uh interference in the US election and the possible

76
00:04:33,520 --> 00:04:37,599
Speaker 1: collusion of a major party presidential candidate with that for

77
00:04:37,680 --> 00:04:40,320
Speaker 1: a national activity here in the United States in our

78
00:04:40,400 --> 00:04:44,159
Speaker 1: political process. So at all times, this investigation, in the

79
00:04:44,200 --> 00:04:49,159
Speaker 1: first framing has been one of exceptional public importance. Now,

80
00:04:49,640 --> 00:04:52,839
Speaker 1: as these threads of evidence develop, we may find that

81
00:04:52,880 --> 00:04:56,920
Speaker 1: there are other issues comparable and significance to develop. But

82
00:04:57,680 --> 00:04:59,839
Speaker 1: I think, going back to the very beginning, we understand

83
00:04:59,839 --> 00:05:02,919
Speaker 1: the importance of what this investigation was attempting to address.

84
00:05:03,760 --> 00:05:08,120
Speaker 1: Bob Rudy Giuliani has defended and said that Trump is

85
00:05:08,200 --> 00:05:14,039
Speaker 1: behind his very aggressive and public strategy. So called strategy

86
00:05:14,080 --> 00:05:18,159
Speaker 1: towards Muller's investigation. Is that they're trying to pressure the

87
00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:22,160
Speaker 1: Special Counsel to wrap it up quickly? Is that working

88
00:05:22,160 --> 00:05:28,920
Speaker 1: on any level? The Special Council's team are professionals, They're

89
00:05:28,960 --> 00:05:32,520
Speaker 1: being supervised by a professional. I don't see any way

90
00:05:32,560 --> 00:05:36,000
Speaker 1: that public political pressure not to mention insulting tweets are

91
00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:38,960
Speaker 1: going to alter what they believe is the course of

92
00:05:39,000 --> 00:05:43,200
Speaker 1: a thorough, professional, competent investigation into these significant matters. I

93
00:05:43,240 --> 00:05:46,680
Speaker 1: don't see any possibility that they're going to be bullied

94
00:05:46,760 --> 00:05:49,640
Speaker 1: or hurried into doing what they shouldn't do, which is

95
00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:53,240
Speaker 1: to short step, short circuit the steps to arriving at

96
00:05:53,240 --> 00:05:55,680
Speaker 1: a conclusion that is firmly grounded in the evidence. So

97
00:05:55,720 --> 00:05:59,800
Speaker 1: I don't see any advantage or potential gain from this

98
00:06:00,000 --> 00:06:03,279
Speaker 1: and paign against Muller as it affects the investigation. I

99
00:06:03,279 --> 00:06:05,520
Speaker 1: think it is more likely that the President and Mr

100
00:06:05,520 --> 00:06:08,160
Speaker 1: Giuliani and others who have been extremely sharp in their

101
00:06:08,200 --> 00:06:12,120
Speaker 1: criticism of Mr Muller. Um. I think it's very likely

102
00:06:12,279 --> 00:06:15,120
Speaker 1: that their hope here is to continue to lay the

103
00:06:15,120 --> 00:06:19,279
Speaker 1: foundation for some action the President could take later. Maybe

104
00:06:19,279 --> 00:06:22,839
Speaker 1: it's refusing his cooperation and taking the Fifth and or

105
00:06:22,880 --> 00:06:26,960
Speaker 1: simply being unwilling to sit with Mr Muller for an interview.

106
00:06:27,360 --> 00:06:30,159
Speaker 1: Or perhaps it is the firing of Mr Rosenstein or

107
00:06:30,279 --> 00:06:33,120
Speaker 1: Mr Muller or both. But other than that, the public

108
00:06:33,120 --> 00:06:36,440
Speaker 1: campaign simply will have no effect on how professionals go

109
00:06:36,480 --> 00:06:39,479
Speaker 1: about their work. Only about forty five seconds here, Bob,

110
00:06:39,520 --> 00:06:41,960
Speaker 1: So a quick question. Are we always see a grand

111
00:06:42,040 --> 00:06:46,600
Speaker 1: jury subpoena from Muller soon? We we? We may well,

112
00:06:46,839 --> 00:06:49,560
Speaker 1: And I think it's very clear under the precedence that

113
00:06:50,279 --> 00:06:53,640
Speaker 1: the President would be required to comply with that subpoena

114
00:06:53,720 --> 00:06:56,520
Speaker 1: unless he chose to plead his rights under the Fifth Amendment.

115
00:06:56,680 --> 00:06:59,479
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for being here, Bob. That's Bob Barrow,

116
00:06:59,520 --> 00:07:02,280
Speaker 1: White House counsel for President Obama and a professor at

117
00:07:02,360 --> 00:07:09,320
Speaker 1: n y U. Law School. At her confirmation hearings to

118
00:07:09,440 --> 00:07:12,640
Speaker 1: lead the CIA, Gina Hasspell promised you wouldn't resort to

119
00:07:12,720 --> 00:07:16,040
Speaker 1: waterboarding and other harsh techniques that she once helped supervise.

120
00:07:16,520 --> 00:07:19,440
Speaker 1: Hasspell was asked how she would respond to orders from

121
00:07:19,480 --> 00:07:22,920
Speaker 1: President Trump to do something she considered immoral. Here's how

122
00:07:22,920 --> 00:07:27,239
Speaker 1: she answered, My moral compass is strong. I would not

123
00:07:27,360 --> 00:07:31,800
Speaker 1: allow CIA to undertake activity that I thought was immoral,

124
00:07:32,240 --> 00:07:36,400
Speaker 1: even if it was technically legal. Um, I would absolutely

125
00:07:37,200 --> 00:07:41,920
Speaker 1: not permitted. Hassbell did not condemn water boarding, but said

126
00:07:42,040 --> 00:07:45,360
Speaker 1: it was over. My guest is Joseph Margulis. He's a

127
00:07:45,360 --> 00:07:49,280
Speaker 1: professor at Cornell Law School. He also represents Abu Zubda,

128
00:07:49,600 --> 00:07:54,119
Speaker 1: a detainee in Guantamo. Guantanamo videotapes of his interrogations while

129
00:07:54,160 --> 00:07:56,920
Speaker 1: he was in CIA custody were among those destroyed by

130
00:07:56,960 --> 00:08:00,560
Speaker 1: the CIA in two thousand five. Joseph come with a

131
00:08:00,600 --> 00:08:04,400
Speaker 1: particular viewpoint to these hearings in this nomination. Are you

132
00:08:04,480 --> 00:08:08,600
Speaker 1: against Haspeal's confirmation? Well, actually, the viewpoint that I had

133
00:08:08,640 --> 00:08:10,640
Speaker 1: going into it was that I was not against it.

134
00:08:11,040 --> 00:08:13,400
Speaker 1: What I have written before and what I stood by

135
00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:15,800
Speaker 1: up until her testimony, was that I wanted to wait

136
00:08:15,800 --> 00:08:18,160
Speaker 1: and see. I wanted to wait and see what was

137
00:08:18,320 --> 00:08:23,120
Speaker 1: disclosed by the CIA and what she UH testified about.

138
00:08:23,640 --> 00:08:29,040
Speaker 1: And after listening to her testimony, UH, now I'm opposed.

139
00:08:29,200 --> 00:08:31,440
Speaker 1: I had I really had high hopes because so many

140
00:08:31,440 --> 00:08:34,520
Speaker 1: people who I respect speak so highly of her. But

141
00:08:34,640 --> 00:08:38,679
Speaker 1: she disappointed me. All right, tell me how she disappointed you. Well,

142
00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:40,679
Speaker 1: part of it is the answer that you just gave.

143
00:08:40,840 --> 00:08:43,640
Speaker 1: She said, I have a very strong moral compass. I

144
00:08:43,640 --> 00:08:46,920
Speaker 1: would not do anything that I think is immoral. People

145
00:08:47,000 --> 00:08:49,680
Speaker 1: champion that answer. I'm happy to hear that answer. But

146
00:08:49,760 --> 00:08:52,960
Speaker 1: then when she was asked directly three times by Senator

147
00:08:53,000 --> 00:08:57,360
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris from California, fine, do you think that water

148
00:08:57,440 --> 00:09:01,840
Speaker 1: boarding is immoral? Simply as that, she refused to answer.

149
00:09:02,240 --> 00:09:04,080
Speaker 1: So it is of no meaning to say, I have

150
00:09:04,120 --> 00:09:06,480
Speaker 1: a strong moral compass, I won't do that which is

151
00:09:06,520 --> 00:09:09,720
Speaker 1: immoral that I personally believe is immoral. If she won't

152
00:09:09,840 --> 00:09:14,440
Speaker 1: say whether what was done constitute something that's immorral, In

153
00:09:14,480 --> 00:09:17,120
Speaker 1: other words, why won't you repeat what was done before?

154
00:09:17,720 --> 00:09:21,360
Speaker 1: Do you see this as much as uh an indictment

155
00:09:21,559 --> 00:09:25,680
Speaker 1: of her, as a as a look at waterboarding and

156
00:09:26,200 --> 00:09:29,280
Speaker 1: what it? You know, what the perception of it is

157
00:09:29,880 --> 00:09:32,880
Speaker 1: I don't mean to indict her. I mean partly to

158
00:09:33,000 --> 00:09:37,600
Speaker 1: indict the process, which does not lead to meaningful inquiry

159
00:09:37,640 --> 00:09:42,439
Speaker 1: into what took place, but also to to cast doubt

160
00:09:43,240 --> 00:09:47,520
Speaker 1: on the extent to which we can trust the answers

161
00:09:47,559 --> 00:09:52,120
Speaker 1: that we've received. She said, I wouldn't restart the program.

162
00:09:52,200 --> 00:09:54,360
Speaker 1: I can give you my clear commitment that I wouldn't

163
00:09:54,360 --> 00:09:57,280
Speaker 1: restart the program. Well, the obvious question then is why,

164
00:09:57,679 --> 00:10:01,920
Speaker 1: Because she also says it were worked, we got good information,

165
00:10:02,760 --> 00:10:06,280
Speaker 1: it helped the country, it was legal. I won't say

166
00:10:06,320 --> 00:10:08,760
Speaker 1: whether it was immoral. Well if that's the case, why

167
00:10:08,760 --> 00:10:12,280
Speaker 1: wouldn't you restart it? Man? It appears her answer is, well,

168
00:10:12,320 --> 00:10:15,040
Speaker 1: because it put the CIA in a bad light. Well

169
00:10:15,480 --> 00:10:18,520
Speaker 1: that's not that. That indicates to me that you haven't

170
00:10:18,600 --> 00:10:21,080
Speaker 1: learned any lesson and as long as you can protect

171
00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:24,760
Speaker 1: the CIA, you're willing to engage in behavior that's reprehensible.

172
00:10:25,400 --> 00:10:29,600
Speaker 1: She refused to answer questions from Senator Diane Feinstein about

173
00:10:29,600 --> 00:10:33,240
Speaker 1: whether she oversaw the reported water boarding of a detainee

174
00:10:33,240 --> 00:10:35,800
Speaker 1: in two thousand two. She said she's going to address

175
00:10:35,880 --> 00:10:39,480
Speaker 1: that in a closed session. Perhaps those closed sessions will

176
00:10:39,559 --> 00:10:42,199
Speaker 1: bring out more information that she's willing to testify to

177
00:10:42,320 --> 00:10:45,520
Speaker 1: in public. Possibly. All we know for sure is that,

178
00:10:45,559 --> 00:10:48,960
Speaker 1: according to the CIA now she arrived and was the

179
00:10:48,960 --> 00:10:53,360
Speaker 1: supervisor of the site where Alanna Sheery, who is the

180
00:10:53,760 --> 00:10:56,960
Speaker 1: who is the person that referring to, was waterboarded. She

181
00:10:57,320 --> 00:11:00,959
Speaker 1: was the officer in charge of the site when Alna

182
00:11:01,040 --> 00:11:04,839
Speaker 1: Sherry was waterboarded. The extent to which she is removed

183
00:11:04,920 --> 00:11:09,520
Speaker 1: from that activity is unknown, but she was in charge

184
00:11:09,520 --> 00:11:12,920
Speaker 1: of the site the central the c i A, according

185
00:11:13,000 --> 00:11:17,240
Speaker 1: to opponents of the nomination, hasn't fully disclosed her role

186
00:11:17,360 --> 00:11:21,240
Speaker 1: in enhanced derogation interrogation. Her explanation is that it would

187
00:11:21,280 --> 00:11:25,280
Speaker 1: be a security risk if you started declassifying associations between

188
00:11:25,360 --> 00:11:30,319
Speaker 1: CIA officers in particular terrorists or terrorism operations. Do you

189
00:11:30,400 --> 00:11:34,360
Speaker 1: are you convinced by that? Well, that's that's always the

190
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:37,640
Speaker 1: response that they give. It's always the justification for more

191
00:11:38,240 --> 00:11:43,440
Speaker 1: and deeper classification. Uh, And it's non falsifiable. What we've

192
00:11:43,440 --> 00:11:47,200
Speaker 1: got to do is say, well, we trust you. You

193
00:11:47,360 --> 00:11:51,000
Speaker 1: say it's bad, therefore we won't look at it. Well,

194
00:11:51,760 --> 00:11:55,000
Speaker 1: you know, the lesson of history is that they always

195
00:11:55,120 --> 00:11:58,839
Speaker 1: air on the side of overclassifying that which doesn't need

196
00:11:58,880 --> 00:12:02,160
Speaker 1: to be classified, and that's what history teaches us. Another

197
00:12:02,200 --> 00:12:04,480
Speaker 1: focus of the hearing was, as I mentioned before, the

198
00:12:04,520 --> 00:12:09,160
Speaker 1: destruction of the video tapes of interrogation of detainees. She

199
00:12:09,440 --> 00:12:12,120
Speaker 1: said her boss was the one that made the ultimate

200
00:12:12,160 --> 00:12:15,000
Speaker 1: decision in two thousand five to destroy those tapes, but

201
00:12:15,120 --> 00:12:17,720
Speaker 1: she had written a memorandum approving the shredding of the

202
00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:21,080
Speaker 1: videos because she said that there were CIA officers faces

203
00:12:21,120 --> 00:12:25,760
Speaker 1: on That. Is that a good reason. No, it's preposterous. First,

204
00:12:25,760 --> 00:12:28,680
Speaker 1: it should be clear so people can judge what I'm

205
00:12:28,720 --> 00:12:31,880
Speaker 1: saying those tapes were of the interrogation of my client.

206
00:12:32,760 --> 00:12:38,160
Speaker 1: Um uh. Secondly, every tenth grader knows that you can

207
00:12:38,200 --> 00:12:42,280
Speaker 1: obscure identities on tapes. They could have been permanently obscured.

208
00:12:42,320 --> 00:12:46,240
Speaker 1: You could have uh changed the voices, altered the voices.

209
00:12:46,360 --> 00:12:50,079
Speaker 1: It's clear that there are anonymizing methods that are effective

210
00:12:50,559 --> 00:12:53,480
Speaker 1: that would have protected the identity of anybody on those tapes.

211
00:12:53,480 --> 00:12:56,920
Speaker 1: It's silly to suggest otherwise. What kind of legal proceedings

212
00:12:57,280 --> 00:13:01,040
Speaker 1: is your client engaging in right now? He has not

213
00:13:01,240 --> 00:13:04,360
Speaker 1: charged in the military commissions. He has never been charged

214
00:13:04,960 --> 00:13:07,640
Speaker 1: almost certainly will not be charged, and that's because of

215
00:13:07,679 --> 00:13:10,360
Speaker 1: the difference between who they thought he was when they

216
00:13:10,360 --> 00:13:13,520
Speaker 1: were torturing him, and who they now acknowledge him to be.

217
00:13:13,640 --> 00:13:17,800
Speaker 1: That the chasm there. Uh. He has a pending habeas

218
00:13:17,840 --> 00:13:20,200
Speaker 1: action in the District Courter for the District of Columbia

219
00:13:20,400 --> 00:13:23,600
Speaker 1: challenging the lawfulness of his detention, and that's pending, and

220
00:13:23,600 --> 00:13:28,840
Speaker 1: it proceeds very slowly. I can imagine, um do some

221
00:13:28,920 --> 00:13:30,880
Speaker 1: things of what the CIA has been putting a full

222
00:13:30,880 --> 00:13:34,439
Speaker 1: court press, basically past past directors in support of her,

223
00:13:35,000 --> 00:13:38,480
Speaker 1: and what some people say as well, you know, she's

224
00:13:38,480 --> 00:13:41,000
Speaker 1: she's as good as we can get. If if we

225
00:13:41,080 --> 00:13:43,679
Speaker 1: don't confirm her, perhaps someone will come along not as

226
00:13:43,760 --> 00:13:48,480
Speaker 1: qualified the next person who has nominated That may very well,

227
00:13:48,520 --> 00:13:50,880
Speaker 1: being as I say, there are people who I respect

228
00:13:50,920 --> 00:13:53,600
Speaker 1: who support her. What I'm this is why I think

229
00:13:53,640 --> 00:13:56,280
Speaker 1: the integrity the process matters so much. We ought to

230
00:13:56,400 --> 00:14:01,000
Speaker 1: look not simply at the qualifications of Gina Hospital to

231
00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:07,000
Speaker 1: run the CIA, but the bankruptcy of the process by

232
00:14:07,000 --> 00:14:10,319
Speaker 1: which it takes place. Do you do you really can

233
00:14:10,400 --> 00:14:13,120
Speaker 1: you fairly say, based on what took place this morning,

234
00:14:13,400 --> 00:14:17,160
Speaker 1: this much anticipated couple of hours, that you know anymore

235
00:14:17,280 --> 00:14:20,120
Speaker 1: and can make an informed judgment as an American viewer

236
00:14:20,160 --> 00:14:22,720
Speaker 1: and voter. The answer has to be no, and that

237
00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:26,800
Speaker 1: has to leave people trouble in in about a minute here,

238
00:14:27,840 --> 00:14:31,080
Speaker 1: did you expect more? Really? I mean this is the CIA,

239
00:14:31,240 --> 00:14:34,520
Speaker 1: after all, she's been for thirty years. No, no, no,

240
00:14:34,600 --> 00:14:37,760
Speaker 1: it's wrong to say that. Um, it's wrong to say

241
00:14:37,760 --> 00:14:40,360
Speaker 1: that what takes place is different because it's the CIA.

242
00:14:40,920 --> 00:14:43,840
Speaker 1: What takes place is the same because it's this. It's

243
00:14:43,840 --> 00:14:47,320
Speaker 1: a commentary on our politics today, and they are so

244
00:14:47,440 --> 00:14:52,120
Speaker 1: divided and so fractured and so bankrupt that no matter

245
00:14:52,200 --> 00:14:54,680
Speaker 1: who's up, you can have somebody appointed to be dog

246
00:14:54,760 --> 00:14:57,800
Speaker 1: catcher and you have the same kind of opaque, well

247
00:14:57,880 --> 00:15:01,640
Speaker 1: trained answers that obscure more than they reveal, and that

248
00:15:02,240 --> 00:15:05,840
Speaker 1: people should be nauseated by it. Thank you so much, Joe.

249
00:15:05,880 --> 00:15:08,840
Speaker 1: That's Joseph Murgouley's he's a professor at Cornell Law School

250
00:15:08,840 --> 00:15:13,640
Speaker 1: and he represents a detainee in Guantanamo whose videotaped interrogations

251
00:15:13,720 --> 00:15:17,720
Speaker 1: were destroyed by Haspell in two thousand five by the

252
00:15:17,760 --> 00:15:21,400
Speaker 1: c i A. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

253
00:15:21,760 --> 00:15:25,840
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

254
00:15:25,920 --> 00:15:29,800
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com. Slash podcast. I'm June Rosso.

255
00:15:30,280 --> 00:15:31,560
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg