Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The latest bombshell
Speaker 1: in the Michael Cohen saga maybe the most surprising of
Speaker 1: all because it draws several fortune five hundred companies into
Speaker 1: a shady scenario. A T and T paid at least
Speaker 1: two hundred thousand dollars to affirm established by co and
Speaker 1: Essential Consultants, which paid the hush money to adult film
Speaker 1: star Stormy Daniels. No Vartis, a major pharmaceutical company, has
Speaker 1: just admitted that it paid a total of one point
Speaker 1: two million dollars to Cohen. On ABC's This Week, President
Speaker 1: Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani said that Trump had reimbursed Cohen
Speaker 1: through a monthly retainer. Even if it was considered a
Speaker 1: campaign contribution, it was entirely reimbursed out of personal funds.
Speaker 1: A company tied to a Russian oligarch also paid half
Speaker 1: a million dollars to the same firm established by Cohen.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bob Bower, White House counsel for President
Speaker 1: Obama and a professor at n y U Law School.
Speaker 1: Bob they say, follow the money, and that appears to
Speaker 1: be what the Special Council is doing. Where on the
Speaker 1: scale of revelations is this latest news in terms of
Speaker 1: damage to Trump and Cohen? Of course, we've had so
Speaker 1: many revelations and sort of grading them in significance as
Speaker 1: a challenge. This is a significant development. It puts Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen with this account in transactions with the Russian government
Speaker 1: over the same period, assuming of Russian oligarch, someone with
Speaker 1: a close tie to President Putin, over the same period
Speaker 1: that he's receiving reimbursements quote unquote from the President for
Speaker 1: the Stormy Daniels matter and apparently also, as Mr Giuliani said,
Speaker 1: quote unquote incidentals. So it opens up a whole host
Speaker 1: of questions about how that account was used, what the
Speaker 1: President understood about the use of that account. It is
Speaker 1: I think definitely a development of some significance in this case.
Speaker 1: What's more surprising to me at this point is the
Speaker 1: payments by A T and T and novartists. A T
Speaker 1: and T said it paid co and in early seventeen
Speaker 1: to provide insights into understanding the new administration, and they
Speaker 1: also wanted guidance on how Trump would respond to its
Speaker 1: plan to acquire time Warner. According to a person briefed
Speaker 1: on the matter, what do you make of this arrangement
Speaker 1: with Cohen for insights? There are some questions that I
Speaker 1: think ultimately will be asked, and our understanding of this
Speaker 1: will depend on the answers about what exactly Michael Kohen
Speaker 1: was offering and ultimately what he delivered, And that's absent
Speaker 1: right now from these UH News reports. We could expect
Speaker 1: probably more information in the future. Of course, organizations that
Speaker 1: have interests in public policy very often look for people
Speaker 1: who can provide sites, and they will frequently look for
Speaker 1: people who are associated and knowledgeable about public officials for
Speaker 1: those insights. Obviously, Michael Cohene is not known as a
Speaker 1: lobbyist or a strategic thinker, only as somebody with a
Speaker 1: close personal and professional relationship with the president in some
Speaker 1: sort of quasi legal representational capacity. And so the question
Speaker 1: is what did he say he would do and what
Speaker 1: in fact did he do? And those are questions um
Speaker 1: quite frankly, like the question about the purposes of the
Speaker 1: Russian oligarch payments that are going to eventually be asked
Speaker 1: and answered because they said in their statement that he
Speaker 1: did no legal or lobbying work for them. So what
Speaker 1: really does that leave I suppose the reference to insights
Speaker 1: suggests that they were trying to understand Donald Trump's approach
Speaker 1: to particular public policy questions that they were interested in.
Speaker 1: That's the most that I can gather from the press
Speaker 1: reports so far. So we seem to be learning over
Speaker 1: and over again how far the Mueller investigation has gone
Speaker 1: already Because he was talking to nov artists or his
Speaker 1: his investigators were last November. So are we seeing a
Speaker 1: bigger picture of why this investigation is so important? Investigation
Speaker 1: is very important. Just go back. I think we can
Speaker 1: all remember the letter of appointment issued by a Deputy
Speaker 1: Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. This inquiry had bottom. The Special
Speaker 1: Council's inquiry is about an extraordinary set of concerns about
Speaker 1: Russian uh interference in the US election and the possible
Speaker 1: collusion of a major party presidential candidate with that for
Speaker 1: a national activity here in the United States in our
Speaker 1: political process. So at all times, this investigation, in the
Speaker 1: first framing has been one of exceptional public importance. Now,
Speaker 1: as these threads of evidence develop, we may find that
Speaker 1: there are other issues comparable and significance to develop. But
Speaker 1: I think, going back to the very beginning, we understand
Speaker 1: the importance of what this investigation was attempting to address.
Speaker 1: Bob Rudy Giuliani has defended and said that Trump is
Speaker 1: behind his very aggressive and public strategy. So called strategy
Speaker 1: towards Muller's investigation. Is that they're trying to pressure the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel to wrap it up quickly? Is that working
Speaker 1: on any level? The Special Council's team are professionals, They're
Speaker 1: being supervised by a professional. I don't see any way
Speaker 1: that public political pressure not to mention insulting tweets are
Speaker 1: going to alter what they believe is the course of
Speaker 1: a thorough, professional, competent investigation into these significant matters. I
Speaker 1: don't see any possibility that they're going to be bullied
Speaker 1: or hurried into doing what they shouldn't do, which is
Speaker 1: to short step, short circuit the steps to arriving at
Speaker 1: a conclusion that is firmly grounded in the evidence. So
Speaker 1: I don't see any advantage or potential gain from this
Speaker 1: and paign against Muller as it affects the investigation. I
Speaker 1: think it is more likely that the President and Mr
Speaker 1: Giuliani and others who have been extremely sharp in their
Speaker 1: criticism of Mr Muller. Um. I think it's very likely
Speaker 1: that their hope here is to continue to lay the
Speaker 1: foundation for some action the President could take later. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's refusing his cooperation and taking the Fifth and or
Speaker 1: simply being unwilling to sit with Mr Muller for an interview.
Speaker 1: Or perhaps it is the firing of Mr Rosenstein or
Speaker 1: Mr Muller or both. But other than that, the public
Speaker 1: campaign simply will have no effect on how professionals go
Speaker 1: about their work. Only about forty five seconds here, Bob,
Speaker 1: So a quick question. Are we always see a grand
Speaker 1: jury subpoena from Muller soon? We we? We may well,
Speaker 1: And I think it's very clear under the precedence that
Speaker 1: the President would be required to comply with that subpoena
Speaker 1: unless he chose to plead his rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for being here, Bob. That's Bob Barrow,
Speaker 1: White House counsel for President Obama and a professor at
Speaker 1: n y U. Law School. At her confirmation hearings to
Speaker 1: lead the CIA, Gina Hasspell promised you wouldn't resort to
Speaker 1: waterboarding and other harsh techniques that she once helped supervise.
Speaker 1: Hasspell was asked how she would respond to orders from
Speaker 1: President Trump to do something she considered immoral. Here's how
Speaker 1: she answered, My moral compass is strong. I would not
Speaker 1: allow CIA to undertake activity that I thought was immoral,
Speaker 1: even if it was technically legal. Um, I would absolutely
Speaker 1: not permitted. Hassbell did not condemn water boarding, but said
Speaker 1: it was over. My guest is Joseph Margulis. He's a
Speaker 1: professor at Cornell Law School. He also represents Abu Zubda,
Speaker 1: a detainee in Guantamo. Guantanamo videotapes of his interrogations while
Speaker 1: he was in CIA custody were among those destroyed by
Speaker 1: the CIA in two thousand five. Joseph come with a
Speaker 1: particular viewpoint to these hearings in this nomination. Are you
Speaker 1: against Haspeal's confirmation? Well, actually, the viewpoint that I had
Speaker 1: going into it was that I was not against it.
Speaker 1: What I have written before and what I stood by
Speaker 1: up until her testimony, was that I wanted to wait
Speaker 1: and see. I wanted to wait and see what was
Speaker 1: disclosed by the CIA and what she UH testified about.
Speaker 1: And after listening to her testimony, UH, now I'm opposed.
Speaker 1: I had I really had high hopes because so many
Speaker 1: people who I respect speak so highly of her. But
Speaker 1: she disappointed me. All right, tell me how she disappointed you. Well,
Speaker 1: part of it is the answer that you just gave.
Speaker 1: She said, I have a very strong moral compass. I
Speaker 1: would not do anything that I think is immoral. People
Speaker 1: champion that answer. I'm happy to hear that answer. But
Speaker 1: then when she was asked directly three times by Senator
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris from California, fine, do you think that water
Speaker 1: boarding is immoral? Simply as that, she refused to answer.
Speaker 1: So it is of no meaning to say, I have
Speaker 1: a strong moral compass, I won't do that which is
Speaker 1: immoral that I personally believe is immoral. If she won't
Speaker 1: say whether what was done constitute something that's immorral, In
Speaker 1: other words, why won't you repeat what was done before?
Speaker 1: Do you see this as much as uh an indictment
Speaker 1: of her, as a as a look at waterboarding and
Speaker 1: what it? You know, what the perception of it is
Speaker 1: I don't mean to indict her. I mean partly to
Speaker 1: indict the process, which does not lead to meaningful inquiry
Speaker 1: into what took place, but also to to cast doubt
Speaker 1: on the extent to which we can trust the answers
Speaker 1: that we've received. She said, I wouldn't restart the program.
Speaker 1: I can give you my clear commitment that I wouldn't
Speaker 1: restart the program. Well, the obvious question then is why,
Speaker 1: Because she also says it were worked, we got good information,
Speaker 1: it helped the country, it was legal. I won't say
Speaker 1: whether it was immoral. Well if that's the case, why
Speaker 1: wouldn't you restart it? Man? It appears her answer is, well,
Speaker 1: because it put the CIA in a bad light. Well
Speaker 1: that's not that. That indicates to me that you haven't
Speaker 1: learned any lesson and as long as you can protect
Speaker 1: the CIA, you're willing to engage in behavior that's reprehensible.
Speaker 1: She refused to answer questions from Senator Diane Feinstein about
Speaker 1: whether she oversaw the reported water boarding of a detainee
Speaker 1: in two thousand two. She said she's going to address
Speaker 1: that in a closed session. Perhaps those closed sessions will
Speaker 1: bring out more information that she's willing to testify to
Speaker 1: in public. Possibly. All we know for sure is that,
Speaker 1: according to the CIA now she arrived and was the
Speaker 1: supervisor of the site where Alanna Sheery, who is the
Speaker 1: who is the person that referring to, was waterboarded. She
Speaker 1: was the officer in charge of the site when Alna
Speaker 1: Sherry was waterboarded. The extent to which she is removed
Speaker 1: from that activity is unknown, but she was in charge
Speaker 1: of the site the central the c i A, according
Speaker 1: to opponents of the nomination, hasn't fully disclosed her role
Speaker 1: in enhanced derogation interrogation. Her explanation is that it would
Speaker 1: be a security risk if you started declassifying associations between
Speaker 1: CIA officers in particular terrorists or terrorism operations. Do you
Speaker 1: are you convinced by that? Well, that's that's always the
Speaker 1: response that they give. It's always the justification for more
Speaker 1: and deeper classification. Uh, And it's non falsifiable. What we've
Speaker 1: got to do is say, well, we trust you. You
Speaker 1: say it's bad, therefore we won't look at it. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, the lesson of history is that they always
Speaker 1: air on the side of overclassifying that which doesn't need
Speaker 1: to be classified, and that's what history teaches us. Another
Speaker 1: focus of the hearing was, as I mentioned before, the
Speaker 1: destruction of the video tapes of interrogation of detainees. She
Speaker 1: said her boss was the one that made the ultimate
Speaker 1: decision in two thousand five to destroy those tapes, but
Speaker 1: she had written a memorandum approving the shredding of the
Speaker 1: videos because she said that there were CIA officers faces
Speaker 1: on That. Is that a good reason. No, it's preposterous. First,
Speaker 1: it should be clear so people can judge what I'm
Speaker 1: saying those tapes were of the interrogation of my client.
Speaker 1: Um uh. Secondly, every tenth grader knows that you can
Speaker 1: obscure identities on tapes. They could have been permanently obscured.
Speaker 1: You could have uh changed the voices, altered the voices.
Speaker 1: It's clear that there are anonymizing methods that are effective
Speaker 1: that would have protected the identity of anybody on those tapes.
Speaker 1: It's silly to suggest otherwise. What kind of legal proceedings
Speaker 1: is your client engaging in right now? He has not
Speaker 1: charged in the military commissions. He has never been charged
Speaker 1: almost certainly will not be charged, and that's because of
Speaker 1: the difference between who they thought he was when they
Speaker 1: were torturing him, and who they now acknowledge him to be.
Speaker 1: That the chasm there. Uh. He has a pending habeas
Speaker 1: action in the District Courter for the District of Columbia
Speaker 1: challenging the lawfulness of his detention, and that's pending, and
Speaker 1: it proceeds very slowly. I can imagine, um do some
Speaker 1: things of what the CIA has been putting a full
Speaker 1: court press, basically past past directors in support of her,
Speaker 1: and what some people say as well, you know, she's
Speaker 1: she's as good as we can get. If if we
Speaker 1: don't confirm her, perhaps someone will come along not as
Speaker 1: qualified the next person who has nominated That may very well,
Speaker 1: being as I say, there are people who I respect
Speaker 1: who support her. What I'm this is why I think
Speaker 1: the integrity the process matters so much. We ought to
Speaker 1: look not simply at the qualifications of Gina Hospital to
Speaker 1: run the CIA, but the bankruptcy of the process by
Speaker 1: which it takes place. Do you do you really can
Speaker 1: you fairly say, based on what took place this morning,
Speaker 1: this much anticipated couple of hours, that you know anymore
Speaker 1: and can make an informed judgment as an American viewer
Speaker 1: and voter. The answer has to be no, and that
Speaker 1: has to leave people trouble in in about a minute here,
Speaker 1: did you expect more? Really? I mean this is the CIA,
Speaker 1: after all, she's been for thirty years. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's wrong to say that. Um, it's wrong to say
Speaker 1: that what takes place is different because it's the CIA.
Speaker 1: What takes place is the same because it's this. It's
Speaker 1: a commentary on our politics today, and they are so
Speaker 1: divided and so fractured and so bankrupt that no matter
Speaker 1: who's up, you can have somebody appointed to be dog
Speaker 1: catcher and you have the same kind of opaque, well
Speaker 1: trained answers that obscure more than they reveal, and that
Speaker 1: people should be nauseated by it. Thank you so much, Joe.
Speaker 1: That's Joseph Murgouley's he's a professor at Cornell Law School
Speaker 1: and he represents a detainee in Guantanamo whose videotaped interrogations
Speaker 1: were destroyed by Haspell in two thousand five by the
Speaker 1: c i A. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com. Slash podcast. I'm June Rosso.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg