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. President Trump's lead
Speaker 1: attorney is trying to explain why he doesn't want the
Speaker 1: Commander in chief to testify in the Russia probe. Speaking
Speaker 1: on NBC's Meet the Press, Rudy Giuliani said he doesn't
Speaker 1: want President Trump to be stuck in a perjury trap.
Speaker 1: And when you tell me that, you know he should
Speaker 1: testify because he's going to tell the truth and he
Speaker 1: shouldn't worry. Well, that's so silly because it's somebody's version
Speaker 1: of the truth, not the truth. He didn't have a
Speaker 1: conversation this truth. I don't mean to go like, I know,
Speaker 1: it isn't truth. Truth isn't truth. Joining us as William Banks,
Speaker 1: professor at Syracuse University Law School, Bill, We've talked before
Speaker 1: about Rudy Giuliani's misstatements of law and fact, but I
Speaker 1: don't even know where to go with his statement on
Speaker 1: the truth isn't the truth, and now it's the overwell
Speaker 1: comes to mind is one place to go. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's certainly the case that the work that's been done
Speaker 1: by Don McGann to testify for what is at seventy
Speaker 1: thirty hours before the Muller team puts President Trump in
Speaker 1: an even more difficult position. He's sort of damned if
Speaker 1: he does agree to an interview, because he may he
Speaker 1: may be contradicting some things that McGann has has said. Uh,
Speaker 1: But he's also damned if he doesn't, because then it's
Speaker 1: McGann's version of the events that is going to be
Speaker 1: controlling more than likely in Muller's report eventually. So uh,
Speaker 1: always there different versions of events that happened from two
Speaker 1: persons point of view, and the President and McGann may
Speaker 1: have different ones. But the statement that that, uh, that
Speaker 1: the truth isn't the truth is not a way to
Speaker 1: try to bring them into one. Uh. Lens Well, And
Speaker 1: I wonder if what he was trying to say there
Speaker 1: was that there are facts and then you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know if he was trying to make a distinction
Speaker 1: there and what's kind of on the spot, but you know,
Speaker 1: there are facts and then there are people's opinions about
Speaker 1: what happened around those facts. That's correct, and of course
Speaker 1: he may have a different interpretation. But it seems unlikely
Speaker 1: to me now that the President would decline to speak
Speaker 1: to the to the Infant Council, given all the record
Speaker 1: material that McGann has provided them. Let's talk about McGann
Speaker 1: talking to the Special Counsel. A lot was made of
Speaker 1: it because of the New York Times story, But does
Speaker 1: he really have a choice about testifying to the Independent Council.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's representing the White House, not the President,
Speaker 1: that's right. He represents the office, and in that respect,
Speaker 1: he's like any other government employees, So he really didn't
Speaker 1: have much of a of a choice. He or through
Speaker 1: his counsel, they could have negotiated the terms and conditions
Speaker 1: of the interview and the subjects that he felt were
Speaker 1: was appropriate for them to speak to. And it sounds
Speaker 1: like he didn't do that because the approach of the
Speaker 1: White House at the time, to Mr Giolanni's predecessors, was
Speaker 1: to be h broadly, transparent and open with the Special Counsel.
Speaker 1: They would certainly like to walk that back now, but
Speaker 1: it's too late. Well, there might not be attorney client
Speaker 1: pro furtilage here, but is there any chance that there
Speaker 1: could be executive privilege? Yeah, these questions were you know,
Speaker 1: these were litigated, these questions during the Clinton UH scandals
Speaker 1: twenty years ago, more than twenty and UH in both
Speaker 1: cases on executive privilege and attorney client UH McGann side
Speaker 1: would have come out on top. That is, there wasn't
Speaker 1: an executive privilege because of the ongoing investigation that could
Speaker 1: lead to criminal charges. It's a similar scenario that the
Speaker 1: Clinton indictment, eventual indictments could have presented that there were
Speaker 1: potential criminal charges from the conduct being investigated, so the
Speaker 1: need for the information outweighed any interest in confidentiality or privilege. Bill,
Speaker 1: I want to test your memory for a moment, because
Speaker 1: I think it's better than mine. But this this morning,
Speaker 1: President Trump was tweeting about collusion and how Muller first
Speaker 1: said it was collusion, now he said it was it
Speaker 1: could be obstruction along those lines who first mentioned collusion,
Speaker 1: because as we've discussed before, there is no crime called collusion,
Speaker 1: and I don't remember it ever coming from the Muller team,
Speaker 1: which has only dealt in you know, facts, hard facts,
Speaker 1: well facts and law, and as the Muller team knows,
Speaker 1: to a man and woman, there is no such crime
Speaker 1: is collusion. There's conspiracy and they know that. Backwards and forwards,
Speaker 1: I think we started talking about collusion. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: someone in the Trump group used that phrase originally, but
Speaker 1: my memory is not better than yours, June, and I'm
Speaker 1: not sure who was. Yeah, well, but you you do.
Speaker 1: I'm sure remember back to John Deane and Nixon obviously,
Speaker 1: and uh and so we're so, you know, the president
Speaker 1: is reviving memories of that of all that, well he is,
Speaker 1: and you know, I don't think it's fair to to
Speaker 1: equate or even compare, uh Don McGann to John Deane.
Speaker 1: But McGann, you know, he was he was wise enough
Speaker 1: and counsel enough to get the advice of counsel before
Speaker 1: he agreed to speak to Mulla, and he was advised
Speaker 1: along the way about the subjects that he should speak
Speaker 1: to and about the depths and clarity of the answers
Speaker 1: that he should give. And he's you know, he was
Speaker 1: determined to protect his uh, his own skin here because
Speaker 1: I don't think we would put it beyond the president
Speaker 1: to try to place Don McGann in a bad life
Speaker 1: or blame any missteps or legal wrongdoing on on the
Speaker 1: advice of his counsel. I want to change topics a
Speaker 1: little here and go to George Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty
Speaker 1: and it's going to be sentenced because the prosecutors, the
Speaker 1: Muller prosecutors put in a memo to the court about
Speaker 1: how much how much time he should get, suggesting it
Speaker 1: and it's it's quite stark in their decision or their
Speaker 1: opinion that he really did not cooperate with them, and
Speaker 1: they didn't recommend a good sentence. They recommended guidelines, right.
Speaker 1: I think that is a bit surprising. We were we
Speaker 1: never knew as much about the Papidopolis and aspect of
Speaker 1: the investigation on the details concerning it, as we did
Speaker 1: about several other pieces. Sometimes people for got, many of
Speaker 1: us forget that it was really the Papadopoulos UH investigation
Speaker 1: that broke open the Russia the Russian inquiry, because people
Speaker 1: now associate the beginning of it with the so called
Speaker 1: Steele Do Cia. But Papa was turned evidence or turned
Speaker 1: material over to the UH, to the media and then
Speaker 1: to investigators before the steel issue ever came to light.
Speaker 1: The other thing that that surprised me. I had thought
Speaker 1: that he please admit a deal with Mueller. But in
Speaker 1: the in the memorandum, they say that there wasn't a deal.
Speaker 1: It was just cooperation. Yes, I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: they probably were inching toward a deal, but he did
Speaker 1: not give them as much as they felt they needed
Speaker 1: to to get it. So we'll see what his sentence
Speaker 1: turns out to be. All Right, thanks so much, Bill,
Speaker 1: Always a pleasure. That's William Banks. He's a professor at
Speaker 1: Syracuse Unit City Law School. It's day three of jury
Speaker 1: deliberations and the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul
Speaker 1: Manifort for bank and tax fraud. Speaking to reporters on Friday,
Speaker 1: President Trump commented about the trial but declined to say
Speaker 1: whether he would pardon Manifort. I think the whole man
Speaker 1: of Port trial is very sad when you look at
Speaker 1: what's going on there. I think it's a very sad
Speaker 1: day for our country. He worked for me for a
Speaker 1: very short period of time, but you know what, he
Speaker 1: happens to be a very good person. Joining us from
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg studios in Washington is Kevin Whitelaw Bloomberg News
Speaker 1: deputy managing editor. So Kevin the President took to Twitter
Speaker 1: again this morning, ratcheting up the attack on Mueller. Where's
Speaker 1: the collusion? They made up a phony crime call collusion,
Speaker 1: and when there was no collusion, they say there was obstruction.
Speaker 1: What what do you think is going on with this
Speaker 1: ratcheting up of the tax on Mueller day after day? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think, you know, this is a continuation
Speaker 1: of what he's been doing for for weeks now and months.
Speaker 1: So at some point, I don't know it. It's a
Speaker 1: little hard to measure when the temperature goes up or down. Um,
Speaker 1: I think the um he clearly feels that he's making
Speaker 1: headway on shaping some public opinion. It sort of keeps
Speaker 1: his base short up in theory, and at least so
Speaker 1: is a certain amount of doubt among other other people.
Speaker 1: Opinion polls do suggest that that you know, Mueller's doesn't
Speaker 1: have the highest ratings, uh, sort of you know, trust
Speaker 1: popularity wise. So so some of these attacks are making
Speaker 1: a bit of an impact. Uh. And and he's trying
Speaker 1: to prepare the battlefield. I mean, keep in mind, and
Speaker 1: it's not clear that Mueller has the authority to indict
Speaker 1: a sitting president. But so so the biggest risk to
Speaker 1: Trump could simply be impeachment, impeachments of political process. So
Speaker 1: and you're trying to inoculate yourself against a political threat,
Speaker 1: you know, sometimes you go on the offensive, and that's
Speaker 1: that's uh, that's what he's doing. What's the over under
Speaker 1: on a pardon for Manafort. It's unclear. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that um, Trump has enjoyed using the pardon power.
Speaker 1: Would be pretty decently uncharted territory for for him to
Speaker 1: issue a pardon like this one uncharted territory politically, and
Speaker 1: and I mean, he has the authority to do it,
Speaker 1: but the political consequences of it are complicated. Manaford also
Speaker 1: faces another trial, so you'd be looking like you're sort
Speaker 1: of actively undercutting a political investigation in a way he
Speaker 1: hasn't quite done yet. Um. There is also the possibility
Speaker 1: that instead of pardoning him, he could commute a sentence
Speaker 1: after he's sentenced. Um, So that'd be a way to
Speaker 1: keep him at jail, but but not quite a full
Speaker 1: pardon or obviously, you know, he might he might not
Speaker 1: do anything. We we don't have a good sense of
Speaker 1: of what he's thinking. On that. This is, of course,
Speaker 1: assuming he's convicted, although there are eighteen counts, which I
Speaker 1: think explains why the jury is taking a few days
Speaker 1: to to sort of work through them all. Kevin, how
Speaker 1: would a pardon really help the press? Because partning Manafort
Speaker 1: means that Manafort can be called before a grand jury
Speaker 1: and then he can't take the fifth he has to testify.
Speaker 1: That might be the risk, which is why commuting a
Speaker 1: sentence might, um, you know, it might be a more
Speaker 1: attractive way because it could it could make it at
Speaker 1: least more complicated down the line. He we don't really
Speaker 1: know it. I think, you know, to the degree that
Speaker 1: if Manafort was going to cut some kind of a
Speaker 1: deal with prosecutors, he obviously sort of missed his opportunity
Speaker 1: in this trial. So um he could, uh you know,
Speaker 1: I guess still sort of do one down the line,
Speaker 1: but uh uh in terms, you know, in return for
Speaker 1: sentencing relief. It's not clear he even has anything to
Speaker 1: to give. But if if Trump wants to muddy up
Speaker 1: the probe, undercut it, you know that he could try
Speaker 1: all kinds of different things. I suppose. Let's shift over
Speaker 1: to Michael Cohen, the president's former attorney personal attorney Fixer,
Speaker 1: according to The New York Times, now under investigation for
Speaker 1: bank fraud and tax fraud around his UM taxi businesses.
Speaker 1: What's that about? Yes, Well, I think we've known for
Speaker 1: a while that that that the prosecutors have been looking
Speaker 1: into loans that he made, uh, that that he got
Speaker 1: for his taxi business, that that he probably shouldn't have UM.
Speaker 1: And I think he's he's in some pretty serious legal
Speaker 1: jeopardy over those. That's sort of its own thing. I
Speaker 1: think it it it. We also know that prosecutors have
Speaker 1: been asking questions about the various payments he helped arrange
Speaker 1: to two women, including Stormy Daniels on behalf of the
Speaker 1: president and others. That's obviously much more significant from a
Speaker 1: sort of political standpoint and from even from a legal standpoint. Uh.
Speaker 1: If if the prosecutors are going there, and I think
Speaker 1: we have less clarity about how far down the line
Speaker 1: they are and trying to do some of those charges
Speaker 1: and and where that stands, Uh, it does seem that
Speaker 1: uh Cohen is you know, signaling that he wants he'd
Speaker 1: be interested in trying to make a deal with prosecutors.
Speaker 1: It's not clear they're interested. It's not clear at this
Speaker 1: point whether Cohen even has anything to offer that Pross
Speaker 1: Skeeters actually want. That's that's what's really interesting, is that
Speaker 1: he's been sending out these signals. He hired Lannie Davis,
Speaker 1: who has also been sending out signals. Seems like, I'll
Speaker 1: make a deal. I'll make a deal. But if prosecutors
Speaker 1: want to make a deal, they know how to call
Speaker 1: the his attorney, and his attorney knows how to get
Speaker 1: in touch with them. That's exactly right, And it's you know,
Speaker 1: we we don't obviously know whether there's been any conversations,
Speaker 1: but uh, it doesn't seem like it, given that he's
Speaker 1: still signaling it. Remember, they've raided his house, his office,
Speaker 1: his hotel room, so there's a bit of a question
Speaker 1: about what he'd even have to offer them that they
Speaker 1: don't already have if they want to do something. This
Speaker 1: case has been separated away from from from Mueller's case,
Speaker 1: so you know, unlike some of the witnesses, a referral
Speaker 1: from Mueller's office was a referral US attorney in the right,
Speaker 1: so right, So it's not clear how, if at all,
Speaker 1: Mueller's case would factor into they're thinking when it comes
Speaker 1: to a deal. So even if Cohen had something to
Speaker 1: offer related to Muller's case, you know, st n Y
Speaker 1: gets to make its own set of decisions and coordination
Speaker 1: with Main Justice about you know what what they what
Speaker 1: kind of deal they might Kevin one minute here, but
Speaker 1: Main Justice, I mean, if there's if there's information that
Speaker 1: will help the Mueller probe, Mueller will know about it
Speaker 1: if he doesn't know about it already. Yes, I mean
Speaker 1: I think there's there's a fair amount of coordination that
Speaker 1: would go through. But st n wise a decently independent
Speaker 1: operation as well, so they've got a fair amount of
Speaker 1: room to maneuver when it comes to these things. But yeah,
Speaker 1: i'd imagine that if they could, if they had something
Speaker 1: related to mother's case, they'd pass it on to Main
Speaker 1: Justice and Muller's prosecutors. So that would be a complicated
Speaker 1: decision at some point that would probably involve the Deputy
Speaker 1: Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who's the man overseeing proble. He
Speaker 1: is in the middle of everything, which is why there
Speaker 1: is so much attention on him. I don't know if
Speaker 1: any Deputy attorney to know we ever knew the name
Speaker 1: of before even all right, Thanks so much, Kevin. That's
Speaker 1: Kevin Whitelaw, Bloomberg News Deputy Managing editor. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: H m hm