WEBVTT - Michael Cohen to Testify About His ’Fixer Role’

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:19.800
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. It's a first.

0:00:19.920 --> 0:00:24.000
<v Speaker 1>A president's former personal attorney will testify before Congress before

0:00:24.000 --> 0:00:26.760
<v Speaker 1>he goes to prison about his work for the president

0:00:26.880 --> 0:00:30.720
<v Speaker 1>as millions of Americans watch on TV. Michael Cohen is

0:00:30.720 --> 0:00:34.720
<v Speaker 1>appearing voluntarily before the House Oversight Committee on February seven,

0:00:35.080 --> 0:00:38.240
<v Speaker 1>and from his statements to ABC last month, he's prepared

0:00:38.280 --> 0:00:42.680
<v Speaker 1>to tell all I will be remembered in history as

0:00:42.720 --> 0:00:45.960
<v Speaker 1>helping to bring this country back together. Joining me is

0:00:46.000 --> 0:00:51.000
<v Speaker 1>former federal prosecutor Elie Hone, special counsel at Lowenstein Sandler Ellie.

0:00:51.040 --> 0:00:53.559
<v Speaker 1>That's a high bar that Cohen has set for himself.

0:00:53.760 --> 0:00:57.720
<v Speaker 1>Can his testimony match up to the hype that's already generated.

0:00:58.080 --> 0:01:00.320
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if Michael Cohen. He clearly wants to

0:01:00.360 --> 0:01:03.520
<v Speaker 1>become this generation's John Dene and I'm not sure if

0:01:03.520 --> 0:01:05.560
<v Speaker 1>he's up to it. I'm not sure if his testimony

0:01:05.600 --> 0:01:08.479
<v Speaker 1>is capable of uniting the country In fact, I think

0:01:08.520 --> 0:01:10.880
<v Speaker 1>what we could see as people driven further apart based

0:01:10.880 --> 0:01:13.960
<v Speaker 1>on where they already stand. People who believe Trump has

0:01:14.000 --> 0:01:17.800
<v Speaker 1>committed criminal acts or acts deserving impeachment are going to

0:01:17.880 --> 0:01:19.959
<v Speaker 1>want to hear everything Michael Cohen says. They're going to

0:01:19.959 --> 0:01:22.560
<v Speaker 1>want to credit him, and people who do not believe

0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:24.399
<v Speaker 1>that are going to say he's a liar and he

0:01:24.480 --> 0:01:27.560
<v Speaker 1>has bad motives. Looking at it from a prosecutor's point

0:01:27.560 --> 0:01:29.680
<v Speaker 1>of view, the proof in the pudding really is going

0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:32.280
<v Speaker 1>to be to what extent is he corroborated? To what

0:01:32.319 --> 0:01:35.880
<v Speaker 1>extent is there other evidence that backs him up? And

0:01:35.920 --> 0:01:38.440
<v Speaker 1>I think ultimately Mueller and the Southern District of New

0:01:38.520 --> 0:01:42.119
<v Speaker 1>York are going to have those answers. John Dene had

0:01:42.160 --> 0:01:46.399
<v Speaker 1>the Watergate tapes that were released later. Also, is there

0:01:46.440 --> 0:01:50.560
<v Speaker 1>a problem in that Cohen is a convicted liar already?

0:01:50.720 --> 0:01:53.240
<v Speaker 1>So does that put a sort of a damper on

0:01:53.320 --> 0:01:57.200
<v Speaker 1>his testimony? Sure? And that's what the defenders of Trump

0:01:57.240 --> 0:01:59.840
<v Speaker 1>will no doubt point out. They'll say he's a liar.

0:01:59.880 --> 0:02:02.480
<v Speaker 1>He is an admitted liar. He's been convicted of nine

0:02:02.760 --> 0:02:05.560
<v Speaker 1>different federal crimes now. And this is the kind of

0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:07.280
<v Speaker 1>dilemma that you work with all the time as a

0:02:07.320 --> 0:02:10.000
<v Speaker 1>federal prosecutor. A huge number of federal trials, I think,

0:02:10.000 --> 0:02:13.400
<v Speaker 1>more than people typically realize, come down to the testimony

0:02:13.400 --> 0:02:16.840
<v Speaker 1>of cooperating witnesses, people who used to commit crimes with

0:02:16.880 --> 0:02:20.320
<v Speaker 1>the people they're testifying against now and have struck a

0:02:20.360 --> 0:02:24.080
<v Speaker 1>deal trying to get a lower sentence, and cases in

0:02:24.160 --> 0:02:26.880
<v Speaker 1>federal court often turn on them. And what a good

0:02:26.880 --> 0:02:30.000
<v Speaker 1>prosecutor would do is explain to the jury. Look, first

0:02:30.000 --> 0:02:32.200
<v Speaker 1>of all, this person is a cooperating witness for a reason.

0:02:32.600 --> 0:02:35.280
<v Speaker 1>If they weren't involved in crimes before, they wouldn't be here.

0:02:35.520 --> 0:02:38.639
<v Speaker 1>And second of all, we the prosecutor, did not choose

0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:41.360
<v Speaker 1>this person. The person who's on trial chosen when they

0:02:41.360 --> 0:02:44.240
<v Speaker 1>were committing crimes together. And third, it doesn't matter if

0:02:44.240 --> 0:02:46.960
<v Speaker 1>you like this person, maybe you don't, maybe you shouldn't.

0:02:47.000 --> 0:02:50.600
<v Speaker 1>The question, really, though, is do you believe him? And ultimately,

0:02:50.800 --> 0:02:53.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't think Michael Cohen's testimony in February is going

0:02:53.760 --> 0:02:55.799
<v Speaker 1>to change a lot of minds from from where they

0:02:55.840 --> 0:02:58.639
<v Speaker 1>stand now. But we will learn a lot of new

0:02:58.680 --> 0:03:01.120
<v Speaker 1>information and ultimate we will be able to measure up

0:03:01.160 --> 0:03:03.840
<v Speaker 1>if whether what he says sort of comports with common

0:03:03.880 --> 0:03:06.240
<v Speaker 1>sense and with the other evidence that we know. The

0:03:06.320 --> 0:03:09.480
<v Speaker 1>chairman of the committee, Elijah Cummings, said they'll be careful

0:03:09.560 --> 0:03:13.760
<v Speaker 1>not to undermine Mueller's Russia investigation. Does that mean that

0:03:13.840 --> 0:03:17.560
<v Speaker 1>we'll miss out on some important parts of Cohen's knowledge.

0:03:18.080 --> 0:03:20.399
<v Speaker 1>I don't know exactly how that's supposed to work. First

0:03:20.400 --> 0:03:22.680
<v Speaker 1>of all, I don't know how Elijah Cummings, Representative Commings,

0:03:22.680 --> 0:03:25.200
<v Speaker 1>thinks he's going to be able to control the Republicans

0:03:25.200 --> 0:03:27.640
<v Speaker 1>on the committee, who would have every reason to want

0:03:27.680 --> 0:03:31.560
<v Speaker 1>to blow up Mueller's investigation and reveal things that perhaps

0:03:31.840 --> 0:03:33.720
<v Speaker 1>aren't ready to come out. So I'm not sure how

0:03:33.720 --> 0:03:35.880
<v Speaker 1>he's going to do that. I'm also not not sure

0:03:35.920 --> 0:03:39.400
<v Speaker 1>how either the House members on that committee, regardless of party,

0:03:39.520 --> 0:03:43.000
<v Speaker 1>or Michael Cohen himself, are going to know what's in

0:03:43.120 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 1>bounds are out of bounds with respect to Mueller. So

0:03:45.760 --> 0:03:47.640
<v Speaker 1>if I'm looking at this from Mueller's point of view,

0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:51.480
<v Speaker 1>I'd be concerned that Cohen may say something that may

0:03:51.560 --> 0:03:54.120
<v Speaker 1>out something that I'm doing. And so the question then is, well,

0:03:54.160 --> 0:03:57.080
<v Speaker 1>why would Mueller be okay with this? Because Representative Coming

0:03:57.120 --> 0:04:00.160
<v Speaker 1>said that Mueller signed off to which I can of

0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:03.360
<v Speaker 1>a couple of responses. Number One, it's possible Mueller intends

0:04:03.440 --> 0:04:06.400
<v Speaker 1>to be done and have issued his report by then.

0:04:06.800 --> 0:04:09.600
<v Speaker 1>Number two it could be the Mueller's approaches looking. I

0:04:09.600 --> 0:04:11.760
<v Speaker 1>haven't revealed anything to Colin and I shouldn't have, and

0:04:11.800 --> 0:04:14.480
<v Speaker 1>he doesn't know anything that I need to keep confidential.

0:04:14.520 --> 0:04:16.520
<v Speaker 1>And I think mother probably would have been smart to

0:04:16.520 --> 0:04:19.400
<v Speaker 1>not reveal anything to Michael Cohen. And number three could

0:04:19.440 --> 0:04:21.320
<v Speaker 1>be he could just think what Cohen can say, whatever

0:04:21.320 --> 0:04:23.080
<v Speaker 1>he's gonna say, I have my proof. It's it's in

0:04:23.160 --> 0:04:25.880
<v Speaker 1>hard documents, it's in tapes, it's in emails and texts,

0:04:25.920 --> 0:04:28.479
<v Speaker 1>and so it doesn't much matter to me what Cohen says. Now,

0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:31.359
<v Speaker 1>Cohen's going to begin serving a three year sentence for

0:04:31.400 --> 0:04:35.280
<v Speaker 1>those nine felonies you mentioned on March six. Could his

0:04:35.440 --> 0:04:40.320
<v Speaker 1>congressional testimony help to knock the sentence down? It could,

0:04:40.440 --> 0:04:44.200
<v Speaker 1>and it's his really his last remaining play to do that.

0:04:44.520 --> 0:04:46.719
<v Speaker 1>There's a rule in the in the Federal books called

0:04:46.839 --> 0:04:49.320
<v Speaker 1>Rule thirty five, and it basically says that if a

0:04:49.400 --> 0:04:52.279
<v Speaker 1>prosecutor goes back to a court after sentencing and makes

0:04:52.279 --> 0:04:54.559
<v Speaker 1>a new motion for a defendant to get a further

0:04:54.640 --> 0:04:57.839
<v Speaker 1>reduced sentence, then the judge can consider that I've done it.

0:04:57.880 --> 0:05:00.320
<v Speaker 1>I've done it only in rare cases, but my and

0:05:00.360 --> 0:05:02.880
<v Speaker 1>my years as a prosecutor, there would be instances where

0:05:02.880 --> 0:05:05.400
<v Speaker 1>someone would have been sentenced and then later on they

0:05:05.720 --> 0:05:08.039
<v Speaker 1>gave us additional cooperation and you go back to the

0:05:08.040 --> 0:05:11.440
<v Speaker 1>court and you move for reduction. So that's a possibility,

0:05:11.600 --> 0:05:14.680
<v Speaker 1>and I think that maybe what's in Michael Cohen's head.

0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:16.680
<v Speaker 1>Sure he wants to be John Dene, but he's also

0:05:16.720 --> 0:05:20.159
<v Speaker 1>probably got more selfish motives as well. The question, just

0:05:20.240 --> 0:05:22.599
<v Speaker 1>as is which prosecutor is going to do that. You

0:05:22.640 --> 0:05:24.720
<v Speaker 1>need a prosecutor to go in and make that motion.

0:05:24.920 --> 0:05:27.720
<v Speaker 1>Southern District. My old office has made clear they're not

0:05:27.760 --> 0:05:31.440
<v Speaker 1>going to. They wrote Cohen a lukewarm at best sentencing memo.

0:05:31.800 --> 0:05:36.040
<v Speaker 1>Mueller wrote him a more positive sentencing memo. So it's possible.

0:05:36.080 --> 0:05:38.560
<v Speaker 1>But then again, Mueller doesn't really benefit by Cohen going

0:05:38.600 --> 0:05:41.760
<v Speaker 1>into Congress and testifying. So he needs to find a sponsor.

0:05:41.800 --> 0:05:43.560
<v Speaker 1>He needs to find a prosecutor willing to go into

0:05:43.560 --> 0:05:46.159
<v Speaker 1>court and say, okay, judge, let's consider a little a

0:05:46.160 --> 0:05:48.840
<v Speaker 1>little time off for this guy. Let's discuss the Mulla

0:05:48.920 --> 0:05:52.360
<v Speaker 1>report that everyone is waiting for. There are reports that

0:05:52.440 --> 0:05:55.880
<v Speaker 1>the President's legal team is getting ready for an argument

0:05:56.279 --> 0:05:59.360
<v Speaker 1>that a large part of the work is protected by

0:05:59.400 --> 0:06:03.840
<v Speaker 1>executive the privilege might that work with the current Supreme

0:06:03.920 --> 0:06:07.520
<v Speaker 1>Court get ready for a lot of executive privilege talk

0:06:07.560 --> 0:06:09.320
<v Speaker 1>and analysis this year. I think it's going to be

0:06:09.400 --> 0:06:11.479
<v Speaker 1>a key term that we're going to use a lot,

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:12.880
<v Speaker 1>and I think it's going to be a key term

0:06:12.880 --> 0:06:15.840
<v Speaker 1>that's going to determine how things like like this big

0:06:15.920 --> 0:06:19.719
<v Speaker 1>question about the Muller Report come out. Executive privilege basically

0:06:19.760 --> 0:06:22.640
<v Speaker 1>is the idea that certain communications that a president has

0:06:22.640 --> 0:06:24.919
<v Speaker 1>with his top advisors need to remain secret, should not

0:06:24.960 --> 0:06:28.080
<v Speaker 1>be revealed to the public. Richard Nixon made this argument

0:06:28.080 --> 0:06:30.080
<v Speaker 1>in nineteen seventy four when he was trying to prevent

0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:33.359
<v Speaker 1>disclosure of his tapes that he had made, and the

0:06:33.400 --> 0:06:36.280
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court in nineteen seventy four ruled against Nixon eight

0:06:36.360 --> 0:06:39.920
<v Speaker 1>zero one Justice then Justice William Ranquist recused himself, but

0:06:39.960 --> 0:06:43.680
<v Speaker 1>the other eight unanimously said, Yes, executive privilege exists. It's

0:06:43.680 --> 0:06:46.800
<v Speaker 1>a real concept. However, you President Nixon cannot use it

0:06:46.839 --> 0:06:50.440
<v Speaker 1>here because it's designed to protect our national security. Secrets

0:06:50.480 --> 0:06:54.520
<v Speaker 1>are military secrets. It's not designed to insulate somebody generally

0:06:54.600 --> 0:06:57.960
<v Speaker 1>against potential criminal exposure. Now, as you said, of course,

0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:00.880
<v Speaker 1>our entire Supreme Court has turned over since then, and

0:07:00.920 --> 0:07:04.320
<v Speaker 1>we have a different ideological Supreme Court. So I don't

0:07:04.360 --> 0:07:07.160
<v Speaker 1>think it's a foregone conclusion that this Supreme Court would

0:07:07.160 --> 0:07:09.320
<v Speaker 1>reach the same result as the Court in seventy four.

0:07:09.400 --> 0:07:12.400
<v Speaker 1>But looking at the nine decision, I don't see any

0:07:12.440 --> 0:07:16.000
<v Speaker 1>meaningful distinction between then and now. Some people have said, well,

0:07:16.040 --> 0:07:19.040
<v Speaker 1>that was tapes, this could be testimony, or this could

0:07:19.040 --> 0:07:21.040
<v Speaker 1>be emails or documents. But I don't see a meaningful

0:07:21.040 --> 0:07:24.240
<v Speaker 1>distinction between one form of evidence and another. All Right,

0:07:24.280 --> 0:07:27.280
<v Speaker 1>we'll see the real value of precedent, possibly this year.

0:07:27.320 --> 0:07:30.920
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much, Ellie. That's former federal prosecutor Ellie Honig.

0:07:33.000 --> 0:07:35.960
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

0:07:36.000 --> 0:07:39.720
<v Speaker 1>subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:07:39.800 --> 0:07:43.679
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Bolso.

0:07:44.160 --> 0:07:45.440
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg