WEBVTT - Corporations on Damage Control After Cohen Revelations (Audio)

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.680
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The latest bombshell

0:00:22.760 --> 0:00:25.520
<v Speaker 1>in the Michael Cohen saga maybe the most surprising of

0:00:25.560 --> 0:00:28.760
<v Speaker 1>all because it draws several fortune five hundred companies into

0:00:28.800 --> 0:00:31.680
<v Speaker 1>a shady scenario. A T and T paid at least

0:00:31.720 --> 0:00:34.560
<v Speaker 1>two hundred thousand dollars to affirm established by co and

0:00:34.720 --> 0:00:37.960
<v Speaker 1>Essential Consultants, which paid the hush money to adult film

0:00:38.040 --> 0:00:42.639
<v Speaker 1>star Stormy Daniels. No Vartis, a major pharmaceutical company, has

0:00:42.720 --> 0:00:45.080
<v Speaker 1>just admitted that it paid a total of one point

0:00:45.080 --> 0:00:48.640
<v Speaker 1>two million dollars to Cohen. On ABC's This Week, President

0:00:48.640 --> 0:00:52.200
<v Speaker 1>Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani said that Trump had reimbursed Cohen

0:00:52.280 --> 0:00:55.880
<v Speaker 1>through a monthly retainer. Even if it was considered a

0:00:55.920 --> 0:00:59.760
<v Speaker 1>campaign contribution, it was entirely reimbursed out of personal funds.

0:01:00.440 --> 0:01:03.440
<v Speaker 1>A company tied to a Russian oligarch also paid half

0:01:03.440 --> 0:01:06.600
<v Speaker 1>a million dollars to the same firm established by Cohen.

0:01:06.959 --> 0:01:09.680
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Bob Bower, White House counsel for President

0:01:09.720 --> 0:01:12.000
<v Speaker 1>Obama and a professor at n y U Law School.

0:01:12.560 --> 0:01:15.120
<v Speaker 1>Bob they say, follow the money, and that appears to

0:01:15.120 --> 0:01:17.959
<v Speaker 1>be what the Special Council is doing. Where on the

0:01:18.040 --> 0:01:21.480
<v Speaker 1>scale of revelations is this latest news in terms of

0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:25.160
<v Speaker 1>damage to Trump and Cohen? Of course, we've had so

0:01:25.200 --> 0:01:27.920
<v Speaker 1>many revelations and sort of grading them in significance as

0:01:27.920 --> 0:01:32.000
<v Speaker 1>a challenge. This is a significant development. It puts Michael

0:01:32.080 --> 0:01:36.160
<v Speaker 1>Cohen with this account in transactions with the Russian government

0:01:36.200 --> 0:01:39.600
<v Speaker 1>over the same period, assuming of Russian oligarch, someone with

0:01:39.640 --> 0:01:43.520
<v Speaker 1>a close tie to President Putin, over the same period

0:01:43.600 --> 0:01:48.120
<v Speaker 1>that he's receiving reimbursements quote unquote from the President for

0:01:49.080 --> 0:01:53.040
<v Speaker 1>the Stormy Daniels matter and apparently also, as Mr Giuliani said,

0:01:53.160 --> 0:01:56.800
<v Speaker 1>quote unquote incidentals. So it opens up a whole host

0:01:56.840 --> 0:02:00.320
<v Speaker 1>of questions about how that account was used, what the

0:02:00.360 --> 0:02:03.680
<v Speaker 1>President understood about the use of that account. It is

0:02:03.800 --> 0:02:07.440
<v Speaker 1>I think definitely a development of some significance in this case.

0:02:07.960 --> 0:02:11.160
<v Speaker 1>What's more surprising to me at this point is the

0:02:11.160 --> 0:02:14.120
<v Speaker 1>payments by A T and T and novartists. A T

0:02:14.280 --> 0:02:16.919
<v Speaker 1>and T said it paid co and in early seventeen

0:02:17.000 --> 0:02:21.480
<v Speaker 1>to provide insights into understanding the new administration, and they

0:02:21.520 --> 0:02:24.320
<v Speaker 1>also wanted guidance on how Trump would respond to its

0:02:24.360 --> 0:02:27.480
<v Speaker 1>plan to acquire time Warner. According to a person briefed

0:02:27.560 --> 0:02:30.919
<v Speaker 1>on the matter, what do you make of this arrangement

0:02:31.040 --> 0:02:37.000
<v Speaker 1>with Cohen for insights? There are some questions that I

0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:40.280
<v Speaker 1>think ultimately will be asked, and our understanding of this

0:02:40.360 --> 0:02:43.440
<v Speaker 1>will depend on the answers about what exactly Michael Kohen

0:02:43.800 --> 0:02:46.840
<v Speaker 1>was offering and ultimately what he delivered, And that's absent

0:02:46.919 --> 0:02:51.480
<v Speaker 1>right now from these UH News reports. We could expect

0:02:51.520 --> 0:02:56.000
<v Speaker 1>probably more information in the future. Of course, organizations that

0:02:56.040 --> 0:02:59.119
<v Speaker 1>have interests in public policy very often look for people

0:02:59.160 --> 0:03:01.440
<v Speaker 1>who can provide sites, and they will frequently look for

0:03:01.480 --> 0:03:05.520
<v Speaker 1>people who are associated and knowledgeable about public officials for

0:03:05.560 --> 0:03:09.480
<v Speaker 1>those insights. Obviously, Michael Cohene is not known as a

0:03:09.520 --> 0:03:12.720
<v Speaker 1>lobbyist or a strategic thinker, only as somebody with a

0:03:12.800 --> 0:03:16.800
<v Speaker 1>close personal and professional relationship with the president in some

0:03:16.880 --> 0:03:20.760
<v Speaker 1>sort of quasi legal representational capacity. And so the question

0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:22.560
<v Speaker 1>is what did he say he would do and what

0:03:22.639 --> 0:03:25.400
<v Speaker 1>in fact did he do? And those are questions um

0:03:26.120 --> 0:03:28.600
<v Speaker 1>quite frankly, like the question about the purposes of the

0:03:28.639 --> 0:03:32.000
<v Speaker 1>Russian oligarch payments that are going to eventually be asked

0:03:32.040 --> 0:03:35.200
<v Speaker 1>and answered because they said in their statement that he

0:03:35.240 --> 0:03:38.040
<v Speaker 1>did no legal or lobbying work for them. So what

0:03:38.200 --> 0:03:42.520
<v Speaker 1>really does that leave I suppose the reference to insights

0:03:42.520 --> 0:03:46.400
<v Speaker 1>suggests that they were trying to understand Donald Trump's approach

0:03:46.480 --> 0:03:49.360
<v Speaker 1>to particular public policy questions that they were interested in.

0:03:49.600 --> 0:03:51.440
<v Speaker 1>That's the most that I can gather from the press

0:03:51.520 --> 0:03:54.360
<v Speaker 1>reports so far. So we seem to be learning over

0:03:54.400 --> 0:03:58.160
<v Speaker 1>and over again how far the Mueller investigation has gone

0:03:58.200 --> 0:04:02.560
<v Speaker 1>already Because he was talking to nov artists or his

0:04:02.560 --> 0:04:06.840
<v Speaker 1>his investigators were last November. So are we seeing a

0:04:06.880 --> 0:04:15.600
<v Speaker 1>bigger picture of why this investigation is so important? Investigation

0:04:15.760 --> 0:04:18.400
<v Speaker 1>is very important. Just go back. I think we can

0:04:18.440 --> 0:04:21.320
<v Speaker 1>all remember the letter of appointment issued by a Deputy

0:04:21.320 --> 0:04:25.479
<v Speaker 1>Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. This inquiry had bottom. The Special

0:04:25.520 --> 0:04:29.800
<v Speaker 1>Council's inquiry is about an extraordinary set of concerns about

0:04:29.880 --> 0:04:33.480
<v Speaker 1>Russian uh interference in the US election and the possible

0:04:33.520 --> 0:04:37.599
<v Speaker 1>collusion of a major party presidential candidate with that for

0:04:37.680 --> 0:04:40.320
<v Speaker 1>a national activity here in the United States in our

0:04:40.400 --> 0:04:44.159
<v Speaker 1>political process. So at all times, this investigation, in the

0:04:44.200 --> 0:04:49.159
<v Speaker 1>first framing has been one of exceptional public importance. Now,

0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:52.839
<v Speaker 1>as these threads of evidence develop, we may find that

0:04:52.880 --> 0:04:56.920
<v Speaker 1>there are other issues comparable and significance to develop. But

0:04:57.680 --> 0:04:59.839
<v Speaker 1>I think, going back to the very beginning, we understand

0:04:59.839 --> 0:05:02.919
<v Speaker 1>the importance of what this investigation was attempting to address.

0:05:03.760 --> 0:05:08.120
<v Speaker 1>Bob Rudy Giuliani has defended and said that Trump is

0:05:08.200 --> 0:05:14.039
<v Speaker 1>behind his very aggressive and public strategy. So called strategy

0:05:14.080 --> 0:05:18.159
<v Speaker 1>towards Muller's investigation. Is that they're trying to pressure the

0:05:18.200 --> 0:05:22.160
<v Speaker 1>Special Counsel to wrap it up quickly? Is that working

0:05:22.160 --> 0:05:28.920
<v Speaker 1>on any level? The Special Council's team are professionals, They're

0:05:28.960 --> 0:05:32.520
<v Speaker 1>being supervised by a professional. I don't see any way

0:05:32.560 --> 0:05:36.000
<v Speaker 1>that public political pressure not to mention insulting tweets are

0:05:36.000 --> 0:05:38.960
<v Speaker 1>going to alter what they believe is the course of

0:05:39.000 --> 0:05:43.200
<v Speaker 1>a thorough, professional, competent investigation into these significant matters. I

0:05:43.240 --> 0:05:46.680
<v Speaker 1>don't see any possibility that they're going to be bullied

0:05:46.760 --> 0:05:49.640
<v Speaker 1>or hurried into doing what they shouldn't do, which is

0:05:49.680 --> 0:05:53.240
<v Speaker 1>to short step, short circuit the steps to arriving at

0:05:53.240 --> 0:05:55.680
<v Speaker 1>a conclusion that is firmly grounded in the evidence. So

0:05:55.720 --> 0:05:59.800
<v Speaker 1>I don't see any advantage or potential gain from this

0:06:00.000 --> 0:06:03.279
<v Speaker 1>and paign against Muller as it affects the investigation. I

0:06:03.279 --> 0:06:05.520
<v Speaker 1>think it is more likely that the President and Mr

0:06:05.520 --> 0:06:08.160
<v Speaker 1>Giuliani and others who have been extremely sharp in their

0:06:08.200 --> 0:06:12.120
<v Speaker 1>criticism of Mr Muller. Um. I think it's very likely

0:06:12.279 --> 0:06:15.120
<v Speaker 1>that their hope here is to continue to lay the

0:06:15.120 --> 0:06:19.279
<v Speaker 1>foundation for some action the President could take later. Maybe

0:06:19.279 --> 0:06:22.839
<v Speaker 1>it's refusing his cooperation and taking the Fifth and or

0:06:22.880 --> 0:06:26.960
<v Speaker 1>simply being unwilling to sit with Mr Muller for an interview.

0:06:27.360 --> 0:06:30.159
<v Speaker 1>Or perhaps it is the firing of Mr Rosenstein or

0:06:30.279 --> 0:06:33.120
<v Speaker 1>Mr Muller or both. But other than that, the public

0:06:33.120 --> 0:06:36.440
<v Speaker 1>campaign simply will have no effect on how professionals go

0:06:36.480 --> 0:06:39.479
<v Speaker 1>about their work. Only about forty five seconds here, Bob,

0:06:39.520 --> 0:06:41.960
<v Speaker 1>So a quick question. Are we always see a grand

0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:46.600
<v Speaker 1>jury subpoena from Muller soon? We we? We may well,

0:06:46.839 --> 0:06:49.560
<v Speaker 1>And I think it's very clear under the precedence that

0:06:50.279 --> 0:06:53.640
<v Speaker 1>the President would be required to comply with that subpoena

0:06:53.720 --> 0:06:56.520
<v Speaker 1>unless he chose to plead his rights under the Fifth Amendment.

0:06:56.680 --> 0:06:59.479
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much for being here, Bob. That's Bob Barrow,

0:06:59.520 --> 0:07:02.280
<v Speaker 1>White House counsel for President Obama and a professor at

0:07:02.360 --> 0:07:09.320
<v Speaker 1>n y U. Law School. At her confirmation hearings to

0:07:09.440 --> 0:07:12.640
<v Speaker 1>lead the CIA, Gina Hasspell promised you wouldn't resort to

0:07:12.720 --> 0:07:16.040
<v Speaker 1>waterboarding and other harsh techniques that she once helped supervise.

0:07:16.520 --> 0:07:19.440
<v Speaker 1>Hasspell was asked how she would respond to orders from

0:07:19.480 --> 0:07:22.920
<v Speaker 1>President Trump to do something she considered immoral. Here's how

0:07:22.920 --> 0:07:27.239
<v Speaker 1>she answered, My moral compass is strong. I would not

0:07:27.360 --> 0:07:31.800
<v Speaker 1>allow CIA to undertake activity that I thought was immoral,

0:07:32.240 --> 0:07:36.400
<v Speaker 1>even if it was technically legal. Um, I would absolutely

0:07:37.200 --> 0:07:41.920
<v Speaker 1>not permitted. Hassbell did not condemn water boarding, but said

0:07:42.040 --> 0:07:45.360
<v Speaker 1>it was over. My guest is Joseph Margulis. He's a

0:07:45.360 --> 0:07:49.280
<v Speaker 1>professor at Cornell Law School. He also represents Abu Zubda,

0:07:49.600 --> 0:07:54.119
<v Speaker 1>a detainee in Guantamo. Guantanamo videotapes of his interrogations while

0:07:54.160 --> 0:07:56.920
<v Speaker 1>he was in CIA custody were among those destroyed by

0:07:56.960 --> 0:08:00.560
<v Speaker 1>the CIA in two thousand five. Joseph come with a

0:08:00.600 --> 0:08:04.400
<v Speaker 1>particular viewpoint to these hearings in this nomination. Are you

0:08:04.480 --> 0:08:08.600
<v Speaker 1>against Haspeal's confirmation? Well, actually, the viewpoint that I had

0:08:08.640 --> 0:08:10.640
<v Speaker 1>going into it was that I was not against it.

0:08:11.040 --> 0:08:13.400
<v Speaker 1>What I have written before and what I stood by

0:08:13.520 --> 0:08:15.800
<v Speaker 1>up until her testimony, was that I wanted to wait

0:08:15.800 --> 0:08:18.160
<v Speaker 1>and see. I wanted to wait and see what was

0:08:18.320 --> 0:08:23.120
<v Speaker 1>disclosed by the CIA and what she UH testified about.

0:08:23.640 --> 0:08:29.040
<v Speaker 1>And after listening to her testimony, UH, now I'm opposed.

0:08:29.200 --> 0:08:31.440
<v Speaker 1>I had I really had high hopes because so many

0:08:31.440 --> 0:08:34.520
<v Speaker 1>people who I respect speak so highly of her. But

0:08:34.640 --> 0:08:38.679
<v Speaker 1>she disappointed me. All right, tell me how she disappointed you. Well,

0:08:38.720 --> 0:08:40.679
<v Speaker 1>part of it is the answer that you just gave.

0:08:40.840 --> 0:08:43.640
<v Speaker 1>She said, I have a very strong moral compass. I

0:08:43.640 --> 0:08:46.920
<v Speaker 1>would not do anything that I think is immoral. People

0:08:47.000 --> 0:08:49.680
<v Speaker 1>champion that answer. I'm happy to hear that answer. But

0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:52.960
<v Speaker 1>then when she was asked directly three times by Senator

0:08:53.000 --> 0:08:57.360
<v Speaker 1>Kamala Harris from California, fine, do you think that water

0:08:57.440 --> 0:09:01.840
<v Speaker 1>boarding is immoral? Simply as that, she refused to answer.

0:09:02.240 --> 0:09:04.080
<v Speaker 1>So it is of no meaning to say, I have

0:09:04.120 --> 0:09:06.480
<v Speaker 1>a strong moral compass, I won't do that which is

0:09:06.520 --> 0:09:09.720
<v Speaker 1>immoral that I personally believe is immoral. If she won't

0:09:09.840 --> 0:09:14.440
<v Speaker 1>say whether what was done constitute something that's immorral, In

0:09:14.480 --> 0:09:17.120
<v Speaker 1>other words, why won't you repeat what was done before?

0:09:17.720 --> 0:09:21.360
<v Speaker 1>Do you see this as much as uh an indictment

0:09:21.559 --> 0:09:25.680
<v Speaker 1>of her, as a as a look at waterboarding and

0:09:26.200 --> 0:09:29.280
<v Speaker 1>what it? You know, what the perception of it is

0:09:29.880 --> 0:09:32.880
<v Speaker 1>I don't mean to indict her. I mean partly to

0:09:33.000 --> 0:09:37.600
<v Speaker 1>indict the process, which does not lead to meaningful inquiry

0:09:37.640 --> 0:09:42.439
<v Speaker 1>into what took place, but also to to cast doubt

0:09:43.240 --> 0:09:47.520
<v Speaker 1>on the extent to which we can trust the answers

0:09:47.559 --> 0:09:52.120
<v Speaker 1>that we've received. She said, I wouldn't restart the program.

0:09:52.200 --> 0:09:54.360
<v Speaker 1>I can give you my clear commitment that I wouldn't

0:09:54.360 --> 0:09:57.280
<v Speaker 1>restart the program. Well, the obvious question then is why,

0:09:57.679 --> 0:10:01.920
<v Speaker 1>Because she also says it were worked, we got good information,

0:10:02.760 --> 0:10:06.280
<v Speaker 1>it helped the country, it was legal. I won't say

0:10:06.320 --> 0:10:08.760
<v Speaker 1>whether it was immoral. Well if that's the case, why

0:10:08.760 --> 0:10:12.280
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't you restart it? Man? It appears her answer is, well,

0:10:12.320 --> 0:10:15.040
<v Speaker 1>because it put the CIA in a bad light. Well

0:10:15.480 --> 0:10:18.520
<v Speaker 1>that's not that. That indicates to me that you haven't

0:10:18.600 --> 0:10:21.080
<v Speaker 1>learned any lesson and as long as you can protect

0:10:21.160 --> 0:10:24.760
<v Speaker 1>the CIA, you're willing to engage in behavior that's reprehensible.

0:10:25.400 --> 0:10:29.600
<v Speaker 1>She refused to answer questions from Senator Diane Feinstein about

0:10:29.600 --> 0:10:33.240
<v Speaker 1>whether she oversaw the reported water boarding of a detainee

0:10:33.240 --> 0:10:35.800
<v Speaker 1>in two thousand two. She said she's going to address

0:10:35.880 --> 0:10:39.480
<v Speaker 1>that in a closed session. Perhaps those closed sessions will

0:10:39.559 --> 0:10:42.199
<v Speaker 1>bring out more information that she's willing to testify to

0:10:42.320 --> 0:10:45.520
<v Speaker 1>in public. Possibly. All we know for sure is that,

0:10:45.559 --> 0:10:48.960
<v Speaker 1>according to the CIA now she arrived and was the

0:10:48.960 --> 0:10:53.360
<v Speaker 1>supervisor of the site where Alanna Sheery, who is the

0:10:53.760 --> 0:10:56.960
<v Speaker 1>who is the person that referring to, was waterboarded. She

0:10:57.320 --> 0:11:00.959
<v Speaker 1>was the officer in charge of the site when Alna

0:11:01.040 --> 0:11:04.839
<v Speaker 1>Sherry was waterboarded. The extent to which she is removed

0:11:04.920 --> 0:11:09.520
<v Speaker 1>from that activity is unknown, but she was in charge

0:11:09.520 --> 0:11:12.920
<v Speaker 1>of the site the central the c i A, according

0:11:13.000 --> 0:11:17.240
<v Speaker 1>to opponents of the nomination, hasn't fully disclosed her role

0:11:17.360 --> 0:11:21.240
<v Speaker 1>in enhanced derogation interrogation. Her explanation is that it would

0:11:21.280 --> 0:11:25.280
<v Speaker 1>be a security risk if you started declassifying associations between

0:11:25.360 --> 0:11:30.319
<v Speaker 1>CIA officers in particular terrorists or terrorism operations. Do you

0:11:30.400 --> 0:11:34.360
<v Speaker 1>are you convinced by that? Well, that's that's always the

0:11:34.400 --> 0:11:37.640
<v Speaker 1>response that they give. It's always the justification for more

0:11:38.240 --> 0:11:43.440
<v Speaker 1>and deeper classification. Uh, And it's non falsifiable. What we've

0:11:43.440 --> 0:11:47.200
<v Speaker 1>got to do is say, well, we trust you. You

0:11:47.360 --> 0:11:51.000
<v Speaker 1>say it's bad, therefore we won't look at it. Well,

0:11:51.760 --> 0:11:55.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, the lesson of history is that they always

0:11:55.120 --> 0:11:58.839
<v Speaker 1>air on the side of overclassifying that which doesn't need

0:11:58.880 --> 0:12:02.160
<v Speaker 1>to be classified, and that's what history teaches us. Another

0:12:02.200 --> 0:12:04.480
<v Speaker 1>focus of the hearing was, as I mentioned before, the

0:12:04.520 --> 0:12:09.160
<v Speaker 1>destruction of the video tapes of interrogation of detainees. She

0:12:09.440 --> 0:12:12.120
<v Speaker 1>said her boss was the one that made the ultimate

0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:15.000
<v Speaker 1>decision in two thousand five to destroy those tapes, but

0:12:15.120 --> 0:12:17.720
<v Speaker 1>she had written a memorandum approving the shredding of the

0:12:18.000 --> 0:12:21.080
<v Speaker 1>videos because she said that there were CIA officers faces

0:12:21.120 --> 0:12:25.760
<v Speaker 1>on That. Is that a good reason. No, it's preposterous. First,

0:12:25.760 --> 0:12:28.680
<v Speaker 1>it should be clear so people can judge what I'm

0:12:28.720 --> 0:12:31.880
<v Speaker 1>saying those tapes were of the interrogation of my client.

0:12:32.760 --> 0:12:38.160
<v Speaker 1>Um uh. Secondly, every tenth grader knows that you can

0:12:38.200 --> 0:12:42.280
<v Speaker 1>obscure identities on tapes. They could have been permanently obscured.

0:12:42.320 --> 0:12:46.240
<v Speaker 1>You could have uh changed the voices, altered the voices.

0:12:46.360 --> 0:12:50.079
<v Speaker 1>It's clear that there are anonymizing methods that are effective

0:12:50.559 --> 0:12:53.480
<v Speaker 1>that would have protected the identity of anybody on those tapes.

0:12:53.480 --> 0:12:56.920
<v Speaker 1>It's silly to suggest otherwise. What kind of legal proceedings

0:12:57.280 --> 0:13:01.040
<v Speaker 1>is your client engaging in right now? He has not

0:13:01.240 --> 0:13:04.360
<v Speaker 1>charged in the military commissions. He has never been charged

0:13:04.960 --> 0:13:07.640
<v Speaker 1>almost certainly will not be charged, and that's because of

0:13:07.679 --> 0:13:10.360
<v Speaker 1>the difference between who they thought he was when they

0:13:10.360 --> 0:13:13.520
<v Speaker 1>were torturing him, and who they now acknowledge him to be.

0:13:13.640 --> 0:13:17.800
<v Speaker 1>That the chasm there. Uh. He has a pending habeas

0:13:17.840 --> 0:13:20.200
<v Speaker 1>action in the District Courter for the District of Columbia

0:13:20.400 --> 0:13:23.600
<v Speaker 1>challenging the lawfulness of his detention, and that's pending, and

0:13:23.600 --> 0:13:28.840
<v Speaker 1>it proceeds very slowly. I can imagine, um do some

0:13:28.920 --> 0:13:30.880
<v Speaker 1>things of what the CIA has been putting a full

0:13:30.880 --> 0:13:34.439
<v Speaker 1>court press, basically past past directors in support of her,

0:13:35.000 --> 0:13:38.480
<v Speaker 1>and what some people say as well, you know, she's

0:13:38.480 --> 0:13:41.000
<v Speaker 1>she's as good as we can get. If if we

0:13:41.080 --> 0:13:43.679
<v Speaker 1>don't confirm her, perhaps someone will come along not as

0:13:43.760 --> 0:13:48.480
<v Speaker 1>qualified the next person who has nominated That may very well,

0:13:48.520 --> 0:13:50.880
<v Speaker 1>being as I say, there are people who I respect

0:13:50.920 --> 0:13:53.600
<v Speaker 1>who support her. What I'm this is why I think

0:13:53.640 --> 0:13:56.280
<v Speaker 1>the integrity the process matters so much. We ought to

0:13:56.400 --> 0:14:01.000
<v Speaker 1>look not simply at the qualifications of Gina Hospital to

0:14:01.080 --> 0:14:07.000
<v Speaker 1>run the CIA, but the bankruptcy of the process by

0:14:07.000 --> 0:14:10.319
<v Speaker 1>which it takes place. Do you do you really can

0:14:10.400 --> 0:14:13.120
<v Speaker 1>you fairly say, based on what took place this morning,

0:14:13.400 --> 0:14:17.160
<v Speaker 1>this much anticipated couple of hours, that you know anymore

0:14:17.280 --> 0:14:20.120
<v Speaker 1>and can make an informed judgment as an American viewer

0:14:20.160 --> 0:14:22.720
<v Speaker 1>and voter. The answer has to be no, and that

0:14:22.800 --> 0:14:26.800
<v Speaker 1>has to leave people trouble in in about a minute here,

0:14:27.840 --> 0:14:31.080
<v Speaker 1>did you expect more? Really? I mean this is the CIA,

0:14:31.240 --> 0:14:34.520
<v Speaker 1>after all, she's been for thirty years. No, no, no,

0:14:34.600 --> 0:14:37.760
<v Speaker 1>it's wrong to say that. Um, it's wrong to say

0:14:37.760 --> 0:14:40.360
<v Speaker 1>that what takes place is different because it's the CIA.

0:14:40.920 --> 0:14:43.840
<v Speaker 1>What takes place is the same because it's this. It's

0:14:43.840 --> 0:14:47.320
<v Speaker 1>a commentary on our politics today, and they are so

0:14:47.440 --> 0:14:52.120
<v Speaker 1>divided and so fractured and so bankrupt that no matter

0:14:52.200 --> 0:14:54.680
<v Speaker 1>who's up, you can have somebody appointed to be dog

0:14:54.760 --> 0:14:57.800
<v Speaker 1>catcher and you have the same kind of opaque, well

0:14:57.880 --> 0:15:01.640
<v Speaker 1>trained answers that obscure more than they reveal, and that

0:15:02.240 --> 0:15:05.840
<v Speaker 1>people should be nauseated by it. Thank you so much, Joe.

0:15:05.880 --> 0:15:08.840
<v Speaker 1>That's Joseph Murgouley's he's a professor at Cornell Law School

0:15:08.840 --> 0:15:13.640
<v Speaker 1>and he represents a detainee in Guantanamo whose videotaped interrogations

0:15:13.720 --> 0:15:17.720
<v Speaker 1>were destroyed by Haspell in two thousand five by the

0:15:17.760 --> 0:15:21.400
<v Speaker 1>c i A. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:15:21.760 --> 0:15:25.840
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:15:25.920 --> 0:15:29.800
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com. Slash podcast. I'm June Rosso.

0:15:30.280 --> 0:15:31.560
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg