WEBVTT - Senate Intel Leaders Split on Russia Collusion

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 --> 0:00:22.040
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. It's a rare

0:00:22.120 --> 0:00:25.319
<v Speaker 1>public riff between the Republican and Democratic leaders of the

0:00:25.320 --> 0:00:28.680
<v Speaker 1>Senate Intelligence Committee over their investigation into Russia and the

0:00:28.720 --> 0:00:32.839
<v Speaker 1>Trump campaign. Yesterday, Republican chairman Richard Burr said the committee

0:00:32.840 --> 0:00:36.560
<v Speaker 1>had found no evidence of collusion, but Senator Mark Warner,

0:00:36.640 --> 0:00:40.000
<v Speaker 1>the top Democrat on the committee, disagreed, saying the investigation

0:00:40.159 --> 0:00:43.159
<v Speaker 1>is still ongoing and the committee still had to interview

0:00:43.200 --> 0:00:46.720
<v Speaker 1>some key witnesses. Joining me as William Banks, professor at

0:00:46.760 --> 0:00:53.000
<v Speaker 1>Syracuse University Law School, Bill, how do you read Burr's comments? Well,

0:00:53.120 --> 0:00:57.040
<v Speaker 1>I think that Burro was was caught by the interviewer

0:00:57.240 --> 0:01:00.760
<v Speaker 1>to answer a specific question of about the state of

0:01:00.840 --> 0:01:04.600
<v Speaker 1>play at that particular date, and he gave an accurate answer.

0:01:04.720 --> 0:01:09.800
<v Speaker 1>They had no conclusive evidence of of conspiracy or collusion

0:01:09.880 --> 0:01:13.560
<v Speaker 1>at that time, but you know, his his colleagues, Senator

0:01:13.720 --> 0:01:17.440
<v Speaker 1>Warner is absolutely correct that there's more to do. Several

0:01:17.440 --> 0:01:20.959
<v Speaker 1>witnesses have yet to return to the committee, UH, in

0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:25.800
<v Speaker 1>part because they're still undergoing proceedings related to Mueller's investigation.

0:01:26.000 --> 0:01:29.840
<v Speaker 1>So the answer is is one that we shouldn't or

0:01:29.880 --> 0:01:32.880
<v Speaker 1>the riff. I think we shouldn't take it too seriously

0:01:32.959 --> 0:01:36.080
<v Speaker 1>because the committee will be back together and indeed, for

0:01:36.240 --> 0:01:41.280
<v Speaker 1>nearly two years now, UH, those two have managed bipartisan investigation.

0:01:41.360 --> 0:01:44.880
<v Speaker 1>I expect they'll continue. There's also a question of what

0:01:45.080 --> 0:01:48.680
<v Speaker 1>is meant by evidence and direct evidence, which seems that

0:01:48.680 --> 0:01:52.080
<v Speaker 1>both Democrats and Republicans are saying there is no direct evidence.

0:01:52.920 --> 0:01:56.560
<v Speaker 1>Are they referring to a smoking gun? Because juries sometimes

0:01:56.600 --> 0:02:02.440
<v Speaker 1>have to draw conclusions based on indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence. Well,

0:02:02.480 --> 0:02:06.400
<v Speaker 1>that's true. So you know, the when when they're done,

0:02:06.600 --> 0:02:09.359
<v Speaker 1>when the rest of the witnesses returned and they lay

0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:12.520
<v Speaker 1>it all out and h there'll be a chance for

0:02:12.600 --> 0:02:16.440
<v Speaker 1>us to derive circumstantial evidence. I think, you know, among

0:02:17.040 --> 0:02:20.400
<v Speaker 1>we've got Michael Cohen yet coming back. There's Paul Manifort,

0:02:21.080 --> 0:02:23.560
<v Speaker 1>and now there's a lot of attention being focused on

0:02:24.040 --> 0:02:29.600
<v Speaker 1>an inadvertent leak last week of of some statements made

0:02:29.639 --> 0:02:33.400
<v Speaker 1>in in a hearing related to Manifort. That there's a

0:02:33.440 --> 0:02:37.000
<v Speaker 1>special interest in the in a meeting between Maniford and

0:02:37.120 --> 0:02:44.880
<v Speaker 1>a Russian named Kilimnick that focused on both interest in

0:02:45.080 --> 0:02:50.280
<v Speaker 1>solving a problem in the Ukraine to Russia satisfaction, and

0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:55.600
<v Speaker 1>on and on Trump polling data that was passed between

0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:59.440
<v Speaker 1>Manifort or Rick Gates to this Russian operative who had

0:02:59.480 --> 0:03:04.400
<v Speaker 1>ties to the intelligence agencies there. As far as the

0:03:04.480 --> 0:03:07.240
<v Speaker 1>Mueller Report goes, I just want to talk a little

0:03:07.280 --> 0:03:10.200
<v Speaker 1>bit about William Barr, who is going to be the

0:03:10.240 --> 0:03:15.120
<v Speaker 1>next Attorney General, and his statements that he would like

0:03:15.320 --> 0:03:18.920
<v Speaker 1>to give as much information as possible in that report

0:03:18.960 --> 0:03:21.000
<v Speaker 1>to the public, but there may be things that have

0:03:21.200 --> 0:03:27.040
<v Speaker 1>to be concealed due to security concerns. What do you

0:03:27.120 --> 0:03:30.320
<v Speaker 1>where do you think he stands right now as far

0:03:30.520 --> 0:03:35.880
<v Speaker 1>as revealing the Muller Report, It is hard to tell.

0:03:35.920 --> 0:03:38.800
<v Speaker 1>And he was he was a little bit coy, I

0:03:38.840 --> 0:03:43.360
<v Speaker 1>think in the hearings and in committing to a specific position.

0:03:43.400 --> 0:03:45.560
<v Speaker 1>But we have to understand that we don't yet know.

0:03:45.720 --> 0:03:49.240
<v Speaker 1>None of us knows what form the Mueller Report is

0:03:49.280 --> 0:03:52.400
<v Speaker 1>going to take. This is This is not like Watergate.

0:03:52.480 --> 0:03:56.680
<v Speaker 1>This is not like ken Starr and and President Clinton,

0:03:56.720 --> 0:04:01.160
<v Speaker 1>where they had a specific charge about reporting based on

0:04:01.240 --> 0:04:04.600
<v Speaker 1>a statute the Ethics and Government Act that, as we know,

0:04:05.120 --> 0:04:09.400
<v Speaker 1>the whole Mueller investigation has been conducted pursu into Justice

0:04:09.400 --> 0:04:13.160
<v Speaker 1>Department regulations, not pursuing to a law enacted by Congress,

0:04:13.160 --> 0:04:17.760
<v Speaker 1>and those regulations don't specify a full report to Congress,

0:04:17.800 --> 0:04:21.640
<v Speaker 1>so we could be looking at any number of different

0:04:21.680 --> 0:04:29.279
<v Speaker 1>formats for report length, content, degree of UH specificity. So

0:04:29.400 --> 0:04:33.039
<v Speaker 1>it's probably not fair for us to prejudge what Bar

0:04:33.160 --> 0:04:36.520
<v Speaker 1>might do when none of us, including Bar, knows what

0:04:36.600 --> 0:04:39.960
<v Speaker 1>the report's going to look like. There is a court

0:04:40.000 --> 0:04:43.839
<v Speaker 1>decision during the Watergate era that allowed the House to

0:04:43.880 --> 0:04:48.800
<v Speaker 1>review the evidence that Watergate prosecutors had assembled against former

0:04:48.839 --> 0:04:53.719
<v Speaker 1>President Richard Nixon, and that states that Congress has the

0:04:53.800 --> 0:04:58.320
<v Speaker 1>right to obtain all evidence. So will that give the

0:04:58.360 --> 0:05:04.480
<v Speaker 1>congressional investigators? And in I think it does, I mean

0:05:04.520 --> 0:05:08.400
<v Speaker 1>that those are important principles. I think Congress, of course

0:05:08.480 --> 0:05:14.440
<v Speaker 1>has constitutional responsibility to conduct investigations within its purview, and

0:05:14.520 --> 0:05:18.719
<v Speaker 1>certainly following the laws of the United States is within

0:05:18.800 --> 0:05:22.880
<v Speaker 1>its purview of investigation. So I think courts would tend

0:05:22.960 --> 0:05:25.760
<v Speaker 1>to be very supportive of efforts. But Congress to obtain

0:05:25.800 --> 0:05:29.360
<v Speaker 1>the information first, we need a dispute, though so far

0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:32.919
<v Speaker 1>there's no dispute, and I think it's likely that the

0:05:32.960 --> 0:05:35.240
<v Speaker 1>information is going to come to Congress one way or

0:05:35.279 --> 0:05:38.760
<v Speaker 1>the other. Uh. You and I've talked several times about

0:05:39.440 --> 0:05:42.920
<v Speaker 1>the position of President Trump here had given the politics

0:05:43.000 --> 0:05:46.240
<v Speaker 1>even though there's a democratic how since we still have

0:05:46.279 --> 0:05:50.839
<v Speaker 1>a strongly Republican Senate, the prospects of impeachment are are

0:05:50.880 --> 0:05:55.120
<v Speaker 1>still very much in the in the distance and highly unlikely.

0:05:55.520 --> 0:06:00.640
<v Speaker 1>And unless that circumstance changes dramatically, I think then there'd

0:06:00.640 --> 0:06:04.960
<v Speaker 1>be little pressure on bar or on Mueller not to

0:06:05.080 --> 0:06:10.080
<v Speaker 1>have the materials that he has, whatever format takes widely

0:06:10.120 --> 0:06:15.120
<v Speaker 1>disseminated in Congress, would appropriate redactions and such. Something that's

0:06:15.160 --> 0:06:19.440
<v Speaker 1>been suggested talked about if the Mulla report is not

0:06:19.560 --> 0:06:24.920
<v Speaker 1>released in full, is calling Mueller to testify before one

0:06:24.920 --> 0:06:28.760
<v Speaker 1>of the House committees. How would that work? Would it work?

0:06:29.839 --> 0:06:33.400
<v Speaker 1>It could work again, so long as as he's not

0:06:33.440 --> 0:06:38.800
<v Speaker 1>revealing secret grand jury information or you know, compromising intelligence

0:06:38.800 --> 0:06:44.159
<v Speaker 1>sources or methods. He could freely testify because there's nothing

0:06:44.200 --> 0:06:47.400
<v Speaker 1>in the Justice Department regulations that would hit him prohibit

0:06:47.480 --> 0:06:50.840
<v Speaker 1>him from doing so. That would be very interesting, and

0:06:50.880 --> 0:06:54.200
<v Speaker 1>that would grab ratings as as we thought Michael Cohen's

0:06:54.200 --> 0:06:57.800
<v Speaker 1>would until he backed out of it. Now, I want

0:06:57.800 --> 0:07:00.520
<v Speaker 1>to talk about some I would call extraordinary area or

0:07:00.560 --> 0:07:05.599
<v Speaker 1>even bizarre comments that Trump's former lawyer, John Dowd made.

0:07:06.520 --> 0:07:08.600
<v Speaker 1>One of the things he said was that he was

0:07:08.800 --> 0:07:14.320
<v Speaker 1>afraid that the President couldn't handle an interview with Mueller,

0:07:14.480 --> 0:07:16.560
<v Speaker 1>because he would if he didn't know the answer, he

0:07:16.600 --> 0:07:20.560
<v Speaker 1>would just say anything. Is that strange for a lawyer

0:07:20.600 --> 0:07:25.200
<v Speaker 1>to talk about a former client that way. It's very strange.

0:07:26.080 --> 0:07:30.520
<v Speaker 1>Mr Dowd didn't do himself any credit or service by

0:07:30.760 --> 0:07:34.520
<v Speaker 1>making those comments. I'm certainly certain that current council is

0:07:34.640 --> 0:07:40.960
<v Speaker 1>very disturbed about Doubt's behavior. He may be right, of course,

0:07:41.640 --> 0:07:44.320
<v Speaker 1>but that's not something that the Council wants to say

0:07:44.320 --> 0:07:47.400
<v Speaker 1>about a client in such a high profile matter as this.

0:07:48.800 --> 0:07:52.960
<v Speaker 1>It's it's certainly this whole case has been unusual from

0:07:53.040 --> 0:07:55.880
<v Speaker 1>start to finish, the things that lawyers have done, and

0:07:55.960 --> 0:08:00.160
<v Speaker 1>including Michael Cohen. Do you believe that Michael Cohen at

0:08:00.200 --> 0:08:03.440
<v Speaker 1>this point will be testifying at one of these committees

0:08:03.440 --> 0:08:05.880
<v Speaker 1>before he goes to prison, because he keeps on putting

0:08:05.920 --> 0:08:09.840
<v Speaker 1>it off. I think he will. I think he has

0:08:09.920 --> 0:08:11.920
<v Speaker 1>been putting it off. But I think he can't put

0:08:11.960 --> 0:08:14.000
<v Speaker 1>it off forever, and I think it's going to behoove

0:08:14.120 --> 0:08:17.400
<v Speaker 1>him to come forward. And you know, I think he

0:08:17.520 --> 0:08:20.040
<v Speaker 1>probably at the end of the day will be at

0:08:20.120 --> 0:08:23.280
<v Speaker 1>least in the House, if not in the Senate. Yeah.

0:08:23.360 --> 0:08:26.800
<v Speaker 1>I noticed that what we started out talking about was

0:08:26.840 --> 0:08:29.360
<v Speaker 1>that the Senator Burr and he mentioned he was a

0:08:29.400 --> 0:08:33.160
<v Speaker 1>little bit aggravated. You could say that Cohen had put

0:08:33.160 --> 0:08:35.800
<v Speaker 1>it off, but they could always call him from prison

0:08:35.880 --> 0:08:38.520
<v Speaker 1>and get him to come in. But I suspect that

0:08:38.559 --> 0:08:40.800
<v Speaker 1>they don't really want to do that. But it is

0:08:40.800 --> 0:08:44.560
<v Speaker 1>a possibility. Yeah, it is a possibility. Right, He's not

0:08:44.600 --> 0:08:47.400
<v Speaker 1>going anywhere where he can't be reached, that's for sure.

0:08:48.040 --> 0:08:50.600
<v Speaker 1>All Right. Well, thanks so much Phil. As always, that's

0:08:50.640 --> 0:08:54.200
<v Speaker 1>William Banks. He's a professor at Syracuse University of Law School.

0:08:55.360 --> 0:08:58.319
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

0:08:58.360 --> 0:09:02.080
<v Speaker 1>subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:09:02.160 --> 0:09:06.080
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:09:06.520 --> 0:09:10.400
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg m