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. It's a rare
Speaker 1: public riff between the Republican and Democratic leaders of the
Speaker 1: Senate Intelligence Committee over their investigation into Russia and the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. Yesterday, Republican chairman Richard Burr said the committee
Speaker 1: had found no evidence of collusion, but Senator Mark Warner,
Speaker 1: the top Democrat on the committee, disagreed, saying the investigation
Speaker 1: is still ongoing and the committee still had to interview
Speaker 1: some key witnesses. Joining me as William Banks, professor at
Speaker 1: Syracuse University Law School, Bill, how do you read Burr's comments? Well,
Speaker 1: I think that Burro was was caught by the interviewer
Speaker 1: to answer a specific question of about the state of
Speaker 1: play at that particular date, and he gave an accurate answer.
Speaker 1: They had no conclusive evidence of of conspiracy or collusion
Speaker 1: at that time, but you know, his his colleagues, Senator
Speaker 1: Warner is absolutely correct that there's more to do. Several
Speaker 1: witnesses have yet to return to the committee, UH, in
Speaker 1: part because they're still undergoing proceedings related to Mueller's investigation.
Speaker 1: So the answer is is one that we shouldn't or
Speaker 1: the riff. I think we shouldn't take it too seriously
Speaker 1: because the committee will be back together and indeed, for
Speaker 1: nearly two years now, UH, those two have managed bipartisan investigation.
Speaker 1: I expect they'll continue. There's also a question of what
Speaker 1: is meant by evidence and direct evidence, which seems that
Speaker 1: both Democrats and Republicans are saying there is no direct evidence.
Speaker 1: Are they referring to a smoking gun? Because juries sometimes
Speaker 1: have to draw conclusions based on indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence. Well,
Speaker 1: that's true. So you know, the when when they're done,
Speaker 1: when the rest of the witnesses returned and they lay
Speaker 1: it all out and h there'll be a chance for
Speaker 1: us to derive circumstantial evidence. I think, you know, among
Speaker 1: we've got Michael Cohen yet coming back. There's Paul Manifort,
Speaker 1: and now there's a lot of attention being focused on
Speaker 1: an inadvertent leak last week of of some statements made
Speaker 1: in in a hearing related to Manifort. That there's a
Speaker 1: special interest in the in a meeting between Maniford and
Speaker 1: a Russian named Kilimnick that focused on both interest in
Speaker 1: solving a problem in the Ukraine to Russia satisfaction, and
Speaker 1: on and on Trump polling data that was passed between
Speaker 1: Manifort or Rick Gates to this Russian operative who had
Speaker 1: ties to the intelligence agencies there. As far as the
Speaker 1: Mueller Report goes, I just want to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about William Barr, who is going to be the
Speaker 1: next Attorney General, and his statements that he would like
Speaker 1: to give as much information as possible in that report
Speaker 1: to the public, but there may be things that have
Speaker 1: to be concealed due to security concerns. What do you
Speaker 1: where do you think he stands right now as far
Speaker 1: as revealing the Muller Report, It is hard to tell.
Speaker 1: And he was he was a little bit coy, I
Speaker 1: think in the hearings and in committing to a specific position.
Speaker 1: But we have to understand that we don't yet know.
Speaker 1: None of us knows what form the Mueller Report is
Speaker 1: going to take. This is This is not like Watergate.
Speaker 1: This is not like ken Starr and and President Clinton,
Speaker 1: where they had a specific charge about reporting based on
Speaker 1: a statute the Ethics and Government Act that, as we know,
Speaker 1: the whole Mueller investigation has been conducted pursu into Justice
Speaker 1: Department regulations, not pursuing to a law enacted by Congress,
Speaker 1: and those regulations don't specify a full report to Congress,
Speaker 1: so we could be looking at any number of different
Speaker 1: formats for report length, content, degree of UH specificity. So
Speaker 1: it's probably not fair for us to prejudge what Bar
Speaker 1: might do when none of us, including Bar, knows what
Speaker 1: the report's going to look like. There is a court
Speaker 1: decision during the Watergate era that allowed the House to
Speaker 1: review the evidence that Watergate prosecutors had assembled against former
Speaker 1: President Richard Nixon, and that states that Congress has the
Speaker 1: right to obtain all evidence. So will that give the
Speaker 1: congressional investigators? And in I think it does, I mean
Speaker 1: that those are important principles. I think Congress, of course
Speaker 1: has constitutional responsibility to conduct investigations within its purview, and
Speaker 1: certainly following the laws of the United States is within
Speaker 1: its purview of investigation. So I think courts would tend
Speaker 1: to be very supportive of efforts. But Congress to obtain
Speaker 1: the information first, we need a dispute, though so far
Speaker 1: there's no dispute, and I think it's likely that the
Speaker 1: information is going to come to Congress one way or
Speaker 1: the other. Uh. You and I've talked several times about
Speaker 1: the position of President Trump here had given the politics
Speaker 1: even though there's a democratic how since we still have
Speaker 1: a strongly Republican Senate, the prospects of impeachment are are
Speaker 1: still very much in the in the distance and highly unlikely.
Speaker 1: And unless that circumstance changes dramatically, I think then there'd
Speaker 1: be little pressure on bar or on Mueller not to
Speaker 1: have the materials that he has, whatever format takes widely
Speaker 1: disseminated in Congress, would appropriate redactions and such. Something that's
Speaker 1: been suggested talked about if the Mulla report is not
Speaker 1: released in full, is calling Mueller to testify before one
Speaker 1: of the House committees. How would that work? Would it work?
Speaker 1: It could work again, so long as as he's not
Speaker 1: revealing secret grand jury information or you know, compromising intelligence
Speaker 1: sources or methods. He could freely testify because there's nothing
Speaker 1: in the Justice Department regulations that would hit him prohibit
Speaker 1: him from doing so. That would be very interesting, and
Speaker 1: that would grab ratings as as we thought Michael Cohen's
Speaker 1: would until he backed out of it. Now, I want
Speaker 1: to talk about some I would call extraordinary area or
Speaker 1: even bizarre comments that Trump's former lawyer, John Dowd made.
Speaker 1: One of the things he said was that he was
Speaker 1: afraid that the President couldn't handle an interview with Mueller,
Speaker 1: because he would if he didn't know the answer, he
Speaker 1: would just say anything. Is that strange for a lawyer
Speaker 1: to talk about a former client that way. It's very strange.
Speaker 1: Mr Dowd didn't do himself any credit or service by
Speaker 1: making those comments. I'm certainly certain that current council is
Speaker 1: very disturbed about Doubt's behavior. He may be right, of course,
Speaker 1: but that's not something that the Council wants to say
Speaker 1: about a client in such a high profile matter as this.
Speaker 1: It's it's certainly this whole case has been unusual from
Speaker 1: start to finish, the things that lawyers have done, and
Speaker 1: including Michael Cohen. Do you believe that Michael Cohen at
Speaker 1: this point will be testifying at one of these committees
Speaker 1: before he goes to prison, because he keeps on putting
Speaker 1: it off. I think he will. I think he has
Speaker 1: been putting it off. But I think he can't put
Speaker 1: it off forever, and I think it's going to behoove
Speaker 1: him to come forward. And you know, I think he
Speaker 1: probably at the end of the day will be at
Speaker 1: least in the House, if not in the Senate. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I noticed that what we started out talking about was
Speaker 1: that the Senator Burr and he mentioned he was a
Speaker 1: little bit aggravated. You could say that Cohen had put
Speaker 1: it off, but they could always call him from prison
Speaker 1: and get him to come in. But I suspect that
Speaker 1: they don't really want to do that. But it is
Speaker 1: a possibility. Yeah, it is a possibility. Right, He's not
Speaker 1: going anywhere where he can't be reached, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: All Right. Well, thanks so much Phil. As always, that's
Speaker 1: William Banks. He's a professor at Syracuse University of Law School.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg m