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. Today's congressional testimony
Speaker 1: of Peter Struck, the FBI agent who exchanged anti Trump
Speaker 1: text with a bureau lawyer, promised to be contentious, and
Speaker 1: it lived up to its promise, breaking down in partisan
Speaker 1: bickering among the committee members from the very first question.
Speaker 1: In an impassioned answer, Struck said his personal political beliefs
Speaker 1: played no role in the investigation. I can't assure you,
Speaker 1: Mr Chairman, at no time in any of these texts
Speaker 1: did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of
Speaker 1: any action I took. Furthermore, this isn't just me sitting
Speaker 1: here telling you you don't have to take my word
Speaker 1: for it and restep at every investigative decision. There are
Speaker 1: multiple layers of people above me joining me now. Is
Speaker 1: William Banks, professor at Syracuse University Law School. Bill Republicans
Speaker 1: have been using these personal texts for their argument that
Speaker 1: Mueller's investigation is biased for some time. Is there any
Speaker 1: hope that this hearing won't turn into a partisan match
Speaker 1: as it started out? I don't think so. June had
Speaker 1: more fireworks this morning, and there we're on the mall
Speaker 1: on the fourth of July. From the accounts that I read,
Speaker 1: it's lining up that way. We already know as much
Speaker 1: as we need to know about his behavior during the investigation.
Speaker 1: We all recalled just a few weeks ago the in
Speaker 1: the Inspector General report thoroughly reviewed uh the involvement of
Speaker 1: Stroking and his UH then girlfriend page and the inappropriate text,
Speaker 1: and he it in no uncertain terms that while the
Speaker 1: behavior was improper and unprofessional, that there's no evidence that
Speaker 1: it had any impact on the impartiality of the investigation.
Speaker 1: So what's the point of this testimony. He already testified
Speaker 1: in private, right, so you know? The Independent Council investigation
Speaker 1: and the more investigation are separate, of course, from Congressional investigations.
Speaker 1: They are conducted in the executive branch. Congress likes to
Speaker 1: remind the American people and others in government that it
Speaker 1: has at least as much authority to investigate the going
Speaker 1: on in government as does the other political branch, and
Speaker 1: that's what they're doing. Unfortunately, in this case, I believe
Speaker 1: that it's been done to make partisan points and not
Speaker 1: for any fruitful purpose. Did you hear anything that you
Speaker 1: hadn't heard before about those texts? No, not sing at all.
Speaker 1: In fact, you know there was. The investigation in the
Speaker 1: Inspector General, of course, was lengthier, more deliberative, and indeed
Speaker 1: the report was more thorough about the nature of the
Speaker 1: texts and the context in which they were written than
Speaker 1: anything that's going to come out in the hearing today.
Speaker 1: What the Republicans wanted to demonstrate, I think at the
Speaker 1: very beginning was that he Struck was much more heavily
Speaker 1: involved in the Mueller investigation than uh then had been
Speaker 1: led we have been led to believe before he asked
Speaker 1: how many individuals he interviewed in the first eight days,
Speaker 1: and things like that that get into the weeds of
Speaker 1: an ongoing investigation, that he Struck the witness properly refused
Speaker 1: to answer. A couple of things struck me as a lawyer,
Speaker 1: and one was when Struck said that the FBI Council,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, instructed him not to answer questions about
Speaker 1: the continuing investigation of Russian meddling, and then Republican Robert Goodlad,
Speaker 1: who was an attorney and chair of the House Judiciary Committee,
Speaker 1: said Struck couldn't consult with the FBI's attorney and could
Speaker 1: only consult with his personal attorney. It seemed to be
Speaker 1: the FBI's privilege. He was asserting, are there any grounds
Speaker 1: for saying you know which attorney you can consult with? Well?
Speaker 1: There was, you know. Underlying that that debate, which is
Speaker 1: a fair one, is the question of whether he was
Speaker 1: there under subpoena or voluntarily. He says, uh that he
Speaker 1: was there voluntarily. He'd agreed to appear before he ever
Speaker 1: received a subpoena. So if he's there voluntarily, I suppose
Speaker 1: there's there's more reason to argue that he should be
Speaker 1: consulting only with his own a lawyer other than rather
Speaker 1: than with the FBI. If he's responding subpoena, of course,
Speaker 1: it's part of his job to ask for advice from
Speaker 1: his employer about what he can say and what he
Speaker 1: can So then that would cut against what good Lad said,
Speaker 1: because good landing that he was there nder subpoena. Yes,
Speaker 1: it seems to be an easy thing to figure out
Speaker 1: whether he was there under whether subpoena was served or not. Um.
Speaker 1: Something he did say that that also struck me was
Speaker 1: he said he was one of a handful of people
Speaker 1: who knew details of the Russian election interference and it's
Speaker 1: possible connection to Trump camp and to the campaign. He
Speaker 1: said this information had the potential to derail and quite
Speaker 1: possibly defeat Mr Trump, but he didn't. He didn't even
Speaker 1: cross his mind to expose that. Do we know what
Speaker 1: he's referring to their No, we don't for sure, although
Speaker 1: given the timing, we can surmise that he was aware
Speaker 1: of the electronic surveillance that may have been carried on
Speaker 1: in June and July of those who were involved in
Speaker 1: in the Trump campaign because of their involvement themselves with
Speaker 1: with with foreign entities Russia and the Ukraine. We know
Speaker 1: more about the nature of those now than we did that.
Speaker 1: Where does this leave the Muller investigation? Will this have
Speaker 1: any more effect on the Republicans ratcheting up of the
Speaker 1: attempts to derail the Muller investigation? Will this give credence
Speaker 1: to either side? I don't think so. You know, it's
Speaker 1: been relatively quiet lately, and and here we are in July,
Speaker 1: and soon the Congress is going to take their summer recess,
Speaker 1: and I think this will quiet down and Mueller will
Speaker 1: will continue on. We might think that he's getting close
Speaker 1: to the end of his investigation, but we don't know
Speaker 1: that for sure. But I doubt there'll be more fireworks
Speaker 1: unless something happens, say around the Labor day period when
Speaker 1: they when they come back from recess. I like to
Speaker 1: to change gears just a little bit and talk about
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer. He's been He's been doing
Speaker 1: things that sort of don't fit in with the way
Speaker 1: he has behaved up until this point, one being that
Speaker 1: he talked with ABC. And is this an outreach to
Speaker 1: the prosecutor's office saying that, you know, basically indicating that
Speaker 1: he wants to turn or do you really need to
Speaker 1: do outreach to the prosecutor's office? You don't. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's hard to read Cohen, and there have been so many, uh,
Speaker 1: permutations and changes in the narrative along the way. But indeed,
Speaker 1: you know, the longer this goes on, in the morning,
Speaker 1: thanks pile up against him. He may be looking for
Speaker 1: ways out and ways to make a deal and talking
Speaker 1: to the media. Is there's one way to hasten that process,
Speaker 1: I suppose, but you know it's uh, it's hard to tell.
Speaker 1: In his case, again, it may just have been a
Speaker 1: slow day at ABC. Well, Um, what what sort of
Speaker 1: puzzles me is what I mean, we assume that his
Speaker 1: attorneys are that at least his attorneys who are representing
Speaker 1: him criminally, they are talking with the prosecutors about the case.
Speaker 1: So it's just it's so people are saying, well, is
Speaker 1: there going to be a deal, And maybe this is
Speaker 1: outreach for a deal. I mean, isn't that something that
Speaker 1: you discuss with the prosecutors. Yes, it is and and
Speaker 1: and I assume that is going on. And why you know,
Speaker 1: Cohen may just needed to get some attention on that
Speaker 1: particular day. Uh. You know, how much of the allegations
Speaker 1: against Colin are amenable to deal making is hard to
Speaker 1: know at this point, but certainly they're talking about some
Speaker 1: of the issues. And another odd thing is he has
Speaker 1: hired Lanny Davis, who is known he wrote a book
Speaker 1: about how the election was stolen from Hillary Clinton by
Speaker 1: the revelations of FBI Director uh Comy, and now he's
Speaker 1: representing Michael Cohen at what you know, just just for
Speaker 1: a second think about it. Tell us what you're thoughts
Speaker 1: are about why, well, uh, success rate? I think you know,
Speaker 1: there are a few high profile lawyers and these politically
Speaker 1: connected cases who have done especially well. I think Davis
Speaker 1: is a very good reputation, and so I think which
Speaker 1: side of the partisan line Cohen is on matters very
Speaker 1: well when it's his own skin. And the other thing
Speaker 1: is Lennie Davis is has connections to the Clintons. He does.
Speaker 1: It's ironic to be sure, But again, you know, he
Speaker 1: closed the Clinton file. Now he's opening a Colon file,
Speaker 1: and he's got other files. And that's that's what lawyers
Speaker 1: in this business do. Yes, Well, it's it's it gets
Speaker 1: getting more and more complicated, and it seems like there's
Speaker 1: a lot of overlap recently. Well thanks Bill. As always,
Speaker 1: that's William Banks. He's a professor at Syracuse University Law School.
Speaker 1: Democrats are a value to throw roadblocks in the way
Speaker 1: of a confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. One
Speaker 1: of the groups mounting the fight is Demand Justice, joining
Speaker 1: me as Christopher Kang, Chief Council of Demand Justice and
Speaker 1: former Deputy Council to President Barack Obama Chris Only conservatives
Speaker 1: will be nominated by President Trump. So why fight Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: when you could end up with someone even more conservative
Speaker 1: next time? Well, I'm not sure that we could end
Speaker 1: up with somebody even more conservative next time, given Brett
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh's demonstrated record. And so we're going to fight this
Speaker 1: nomination because Brett Kavanaugh's record demonstrates that he is anti healthcare,
Speaker 1: he's anti abortion, and he thinks Trump is above the law.
Speaker 1: And these are the values and the principles that we
Speaker 1: need to stand up and fight for, regardless of what
Speaker 1: theoretically might happen down the line. So from the y
Speaker 1: to the how Republicans have the votes? Justice Neil Gorsich
Speaker 1: was confirmed by a vote of fifty ft. How can
Speaker 1: you beat that Republicans do not have the votes? Republicans
Speaker 1: currently have a majority of Senators. But when this nomination
Speaker 1: and unfolds, when Judge Kavanaugh's full record comes out, when
Speaker 1: the one million documents that are sitting in the Bush
Speaker 1: Presidential Library come out from his time there and reveal
Speaker 1: even more about his thinking and his analysis when it
Speaker 1: comes to these critical legal issues, I think you'll see
Speaker 1: the tide change. They are currently a majority of Senators
Speaker 1: who believe that healthcare for people with pre existing conditions
Speaker 1: should be maintained and not as the Trump administration is
Speaker 1: trying to do taken away in the courts. And there
Speaker 1: are majority of people who believe that Roe versus Way
Speaker 1: it should not be overturned. These are critical issues that
Speaker 1: I think we can change the tide on, and when
Speaker 1: the time comes for a vote, Judge Kavanaugh can and
Speaker 1: should be defeated. Let's skip over the Republican votes for
Speaker 1: a moment and talk about the three red state Democrats
Speaker 1: who voted for Gorsage. Joe Mansion of West Virginia has
Speaker 1: said that Kavanaugh has all the right qualities and high
Speaker 1: moral standards. Can you keep him and the other Democrats
Speaker 1: from voting for Kavanaugh to protect themselves at the ballot box?
Speaker 1: If you just look at Judge Kavanaugh his record resume,
Speaker 1: there's no question that he has the qualifications. But qualifications
Speaker 1: are more than what school you went to and where
Speaker 1: you worked as your last job. When Senator Manson and
Speaker 1: other senators look at his record, they look at President
Speaker 1: Trump's litmus test when it came to overturning the Affordable
Speaker 1: Care Act and its critical healthcare protections. I think he's
Speaker 1: not going to have a very hard time politically going
Speaker 1: back and saying I am continuing to stand up for
Speaker 1: all of the West Virginians who have pre existing who
Speaker 1: have pre existing conditions and are receiving healthcare, and that
Speaker 1: would be taken away if Judge Kavanaugh were confirmed. We're
Speaker 1: hearing the same things from the two Republican female senators,
Speaker 1: Susan Collins and Lisa Rakowski that we heard when came
Speaker 1: up for a nomination. They wanted to make sure he'll
Speaker 1: follow precedent and not overturn Roe v. Wade. But Gorsuch,
Speaker 1: his votes show that whatever nominee says, he's been vetted
Speaker 1: by the federal society and will follow his past. I
Speaker 1: completely agree with you, and I think that that will
Speaker 1: be true of Judge Kavanaugh as well. And Judge Kavanaugh's
Speaker 1: record goes even further than that. Just last year, he
Speaker 1: delivered a speech in which he praised Justice rank with
Speaker 1: dissent in row. I think we know where he's headed
Speaker 1: and what his views are with respect to precedent and
Speaker 1: with respect to Roll versus Wade and I think that
Speaker 1: when Senator Collins and Senator Makowski and other senators have
Speaker 1: a chance to question him and examine that record, they're
Speaker 1: going to understand that if he is confirmed, Roll versus
Speaker 1: Wade will in fact be overturned. So what is your
Speaker 1: group going to do? Concretely? Where are you going to
Speaker 1: be spending your money? How much of it? What's the plan?
Speaker 1: We already have ads up in Maine and Alaska, will
Speaker 1: have other ads up going as soon as the end
Speaker 1: of the week talking about these issues, talking about healthcare,
Speaker 1: talking about protecting healthcare for people with pre existing conditions,
Speaker 1: talking about the fact that Roll versus Wade is on
Speaker 1: the brink of being overturned, and encouraging people to contact
Speaker 1: their senators and make their voices known. We are. We've
Speaker 1: announced that our overall budget for ads will be five
Speaker 1: million dollars, and I think you'll see that spread out
Speaker 1: from now until the time that this vote is taken.
Speaker 1: How does your budget compare to the budgets of the
Speaker 1: conservative groups that have made this You know, for years
Speaker 1: and years have been fighting to have a more conservative court. Well,
Speaker 1: we'll never match the conservative groups dollar for dollar. But
Speaker 1: I also don't think we need to when the American people,
Speaker 1: by a majority of two, by a margin of two
Speaker 1: to one, believe that ro versus wage should not be overturned,
Speaker 1: and by a majority of two to one do not
Speaker 1: believe the President Trump should be taking away health care
Speaker 1: for people with pre existing conditions. We're gonna see a
Speaker 1: lot of grassroots energy and activism come out, and I
Speaker 1: think that people's voices, their telephone calls, they're marching in
Speaker 1: the streets. I think that's going to overwhelm any money disadvantage.
Speaker 1: We might have about a minute left here. You helped
Speaker 1: oversee the confirmations of Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Sonya
Speaker 1: Soto mayor are you gonna be taking part in the
Speaker 1: prep of Democratic senators for these hearings or how are
Speaker 1: you going to be taking part in that? I mean,
Speaker 1: I think we leave it to the Democratic senators and
Speaker 1: their staff and the legal experts that they can sult
Speaker 1: to figure out exactly what lines of questioning and issues
Speaker 1: that they might be interested in. But I will say
Speaker 1: one of the things that I'm helping to lift up,
Speaker 1: based on my experience with Atlanta Kagan's nomination, is again
Speaker 1: these documents at the White House the Clinton administration. The
Speaker 1: Clinton Library turned over a hundred and seventy thousand pages
Speaker 1: of documents from Atlanta Kagan's confirmation process of what the
Speaker 1: Senate asked for on a bipartisan basis. There are more
Speaker 1: than a million documents out there in the Bush Library
Speaker 1: for Judge Kavanaugh, and I'm helping China light on that
Speaker 1: to make sure that the entire Senate gets the documents
Speaker 1: it needs in order to make a decision. Thanks Chris,
Speaker 1: I'll note that you change your Twitter name to Chris
Speaker 1: hashtag stop Kavanaugh Kang. That's Christopher Kangy's Chief Council of
Speaker 1: Demand Justice and former Deputy Council to President Obama. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I am June Brolso
Speaker 1: this is Bloomberg m HM.