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. In a long
Speaker 1: and wide ranging interview with Fox News yesterday, President Trump
Speaker 1: spoke about his embattled personal attorney, Michael Cohen, saying Cohen
Speaker 1: only handled a small amount of his legal business. He
Speaker 1: represents me, like with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal. He
Speaker 1: represented me, and you know, from what I see, he
Speaker 1: did absolutely nothing wrong if there were no campaign fund
Speaker 1: joining us as former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Kramer, the managing
Speaker 1: director of the Berkeley Research Group jeff The speculation about
Speaker 1: whether Cohen will cooperate seemed to reach a fever pitch
Speaker 1: after Trump's interview yesterday, where he tried to distance himself
Speaker 1: from Cohen, saying he only did a tiny, tiny, little
Speaker 1: fraction of his legal work. If Cohen were your client,
Speaker 1: would you be knocking on the Special Council's door door
Speaker 1: to make a deal. You know? It all, Uh, it
Speaker 1: all depends on how big a hammer. Uh. The now
Speaker 1: the Southern District, and maybe the special prosecutor has if
Speaker 1: it's just the hundred thirty thousand campaign finance violation, and
Speaker 1: maybe there's a banking allegation there as well. Uh. I say,
Speaker 1: just because in the scheme of things, that's not much,
Speaker 1: he might not be looking at at very much jail time. However,
Speaker 1: if they start getting into other transactions, uh and possible
Speaker 1: other frauds, then the impetus to cooperate is going to
Speaker 1: be strong. But you have to keep in mind that
Speaker 1: if Mr Kohn does cooperate, the chances of a pardon
Speaker 1: obviously goes out the door. And at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, he's going to be a disbarred lawyer looking
Speaker 1: for work and he may want to favor from the president. Now,
Speaker 1: within just a couple of hours after that phone called
Speaker 1: a Fox, attorneys were already drafting documents that were getting
Speaker 1: had to send things to court. Can you engauge just
Speaker 1: how damaging or not that phone call might have been
Speaker 1: for the president or from Michael Cohen. Well, certainly got
Speaker 1: rid of one check box that they have to do,
Speaker 1: which is that Cohen was representing the president in the
Speaker 1: story of McDaniel and story daniels transaction. Not that that's shocking.
Speaker 1: Obviously Cohn wasn't doing it for himself, but that just
Speaker 1: gets that out of the out of the gate to
Speaker 1: begin with. So now we're left with two things. One
Speaker 1: either the president knew about the payment, in which case
Speaker 1: it could be a campaign violation, or two that con
Speaker 1: did it on his own with his own money without
Speaker 1: reimbursement from the president. I think it's doubtful it's number two,
Speaker 1: since I don't know many attorneys who are going to
Speaker 1: front a hundred and thirty thousand dollars with their client
Speaker 1: and not getting paid. That seems like it would be
Speaker 1: something that would be rather easy to prove, or am
Speaker 1: I wrong? You know what, with this set of prosecutors,
Speaker 1: it probably is. I mean, it's not going to be
Speaker 1: a check from the President's organization for a hundred third thousand,
Speaker 1: but it could easily be buried in UH an invoice
Speaker 1: from Mr Cohen to the Trump Organization for legal services.
Speaker 1: That may be a little harder. You know, is there
Speaker 1: an extra hundred and thirty thousand dollars for research or
Speaker 1: for handling different cases? That's a little harder to dissect. Um,
Speaker 1: but we're still left with the I think a reasonable
Speaker 1: uh statement is is that again, no lawyer fronts that
Speaker 1: kind of money without getting reimbursed. It's just it makes
Speaker 1: no sense. Before all of this happened, I had never
Speaker 1: heard of a special Master before. Uh. I love the
Speaker 1: title of it. It sounds like a special rank, maybe
Speaker 1: in the Navy or something. But the judge who has
Speaker 1: chosen has been chosen to be that special master. Um
Speaker 1: is Barbara Jones. And her reputation is that she cut
Speaker 1: her teeth as a mob prosecutor. Does that tell you
Speaker 1: anything or is that just coincidence? Uh? No, that's coincidence. Uh.
Speaker 1: Barbara Jones, former prosecutor and federal judge. Uh So, when
Speaker 1: you're a prosecutor in New York City, the chances you're
Speaker 1: gonna do some organized crime cases are pretty good. Um.
Speaker 1: Barbara's is a very well respected practitioner. Uh So, I
Speaker 1: think both sides can be comfortable that she's gonna call
Speaker 1: balls and strikes well. Jeff Stormy, Daniel's lawyer, asked to
Speaker 1: be allowed to join the case because of evidence that
Speaker 1: was seized from the raid on Cohen's office. Should he
Speaker 1: be allowed to join the case? Uh, well, it's not
Speaker 1: surprising he's trying to get some at least a seat
Speaker 1: at the table to see what's going on. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if he has any standing or not. And and
Speaker 1: the judge, Kimball would who's certainly handled her fair share
Speaker 1: of high profile matters, is being very careful, not surprisingly
Speaker 1: and circumspect in this. So uh, it's so far it
Speaker 1: doesn't play out anyway. I'm not sure if again he
Speaker 1: has standing at this point. Uh, it depends on what
Speaker 1: documents are in there. But at least he's he's putting
Speaker 1: a pin uh in the dark board just to to
Speaker 1: to set his place there just in case. What is
Speaker 1: the process from here on out? There seem to be
Speaker 1: so many different layers and so many different strings going
Speaker 1: on to different cases and different um civil suits. It
Speaker 1: all starts to get tangled up if you cannot keep
Speaker 1: track of it very clearly. So what is the process now?
Speaker 1: Walk us through? Yeah, it is very convoluted. You know
Speaker 1: a lot of clowns under the circus tent right now. Um,
Speaker 1: so you have uh Trump's attorneys who wanted to and
Speaker 1: the judge allow them to take a look at what's
Speaker 1: there so they can take a first pass at what
Speaker 1: they think might be privileged UM, and the prosecutors Southern
Speaker 1: District has said they would have a taint team UM
Speaker 1: to go through the items. But what's going to happen
Speaker 1: is that cons attorneys will look at it. Trump's attorneys
Speaker 1: will look at it. Prosecutors obviously know what they have
Speaker 1: for the most part um. But then uh, judge Judge
Speaker 1: or Judge Jones, Jones will look at it and decide
Speaker 1: what is privileged and what is not and then give
Speaker 1: it to the Southern District prosecute or so in a
Speaker 1: normal case, not many normal things here, there would be
Speaker 1: what's called a paint team, prosecutors and agents not associated
Speaker 1: with the case in chief reviewing items. The judges kind
Speaker 1: of removed that from the prosecutors, and I'm going to
Speaker 1: have Barbara Jones look at it and then decide what
Speaker 1: prosecutors can look at and what they cannot. So, Jeff
Speaker 1: during that interview yesterday on Fox Trump hinted that he
Speaker 1: may intervene in the Justice Department's Russia investigation, which he
Speaker 1: has hinted at before. But did that that that's to
Speaker 1: send you any you know, do you have any more
Speaker 1: additional concerns because of this Cone probe that he might
Speaker 1: do that. You know what, I think any anyone who's
Speaker 1: been involved in the system, and any former prosecutor, that's
Speaker 1: what said a chill down their spine when the President
Speaker 1: United States that they're going to take over parts of
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. And if it came from any other president,
Speaker 1: I think be front page news. But because this president
Speaker 1: is is somewhat free his language and probably doesn't mean
Speaker 1: eight tenths of what he says, you take it with
Speaker 1: a grain assault. Like I said, if it had been
Speaker 1: any other president in our lifetime that made that statement,
Speaker 1: it would be shocking. That bar of shocking is it's
Speaker 1: pretty far right, it's pretty high right now. So is
Speaker 1: he going to take over the Justice Department? No? Is
Speaker 1: he just you know, pontificating that thirty minute rant. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: and you'll be aware that today he said again during
Speaker 1: his meeting with Angela Merkel, referring to that committee report.
Speaker 1: Again he said, no collusion, no collusion. Thank you. Jeff Kramer,
Speaker 1: as always, he's the managing director of the Berkeley Research
Speaker 1: Group and a former Dead World prosecutor. Speaking at an
Speaker 1: infrastructure event in Richfield, Ohio, last month, President Trump thanked
Speaker 1: President Obama for leaving so many judicial posts open for
Speaker 1: the Trump administration to fill. We were left judges. They're
Speaker 1: the ones that judge on your disputes. They judge on
Speaker 1: what's fair, on the environment, and what's not fair, where
Speaker 1: they're going to take your farms and factories away and
Speaker 1: where they're not. Amazing, it was the gift kind of
Speaker 1: despite congressional gridlock, President Trump and Mitch McConnell's seeing some
Speaker 1: success confirming federal court nominees, filling the US judiciary with
Speaker 1: young conservatives who can actually shape American law for generations
Speaker 1: to come. Laura lit Van covers Congress for Bloomberg News,
Speaker 1: and she joins us now to clear a few things
Speaker 1: up in our Bloomberg ninety nine one studios in Washington.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about first what the President did say that
Speaker 1: this was a gift, but it wasn't a gift. Actually
Speaker 1: it was something else. Well, it was a strategy really.
Speaker 1: I mean, we see in both parties in recent decades
Speaker 1: a growing determination as one presidency starts to end too
Speaker 1: if one party, the other party will hold the Senate
Speaker 1: to delay things and keep things open. So what we
Speaker 1: had happened under at the end of Obama's term was
Speaker 1: not only the Supreme Court vacancy after Justice Scalia passed
Speaker 1: away that was kept open, but also a lot of
Speaker 1: people don't realize this, but there were a hundred eight
Speaker 1: judge ships vacant when Trump came in, as partly because
Speaker 1: the Republicans in the Senate used every available opportunity to
Speaker 1: try to delay some of the Obama pics. There are
Speaker 1: only two Circuit court judges approved under President Obama's last
Speaker 1: two years and eighteen district court judges. That's a trickle, Laura.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the judges themselves, except in a few cases.
Speaker 1: The judicial nominations contrast with some of the other nominations
Speaker 1: that Trump the Trump administration has put forward. Are the
Speaker 1: candidates being vetted or suggested by outside conservative groups, well, um,
Speaker 1: the the Federalist Society. The executive vice president of that
Speaker 1: organization is operating, as he says, separately as an advisor
Speaker 1: to the White House, because that group doesn't make recommendations,
Speaker 1: but certainly he's taking his perspective in there. And there's
Speaker 1: other people advising the White House. Um, and you know,
Speaker 1: the White House Council McGann is working closely with Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell's office as they're ferreting through all the potential nominees
Speaker 1: very closely, looking for the right kind of conservative, originalist
Speaker 1: kind of perspective that they want to bring to the courts. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you had said that there were more than one
Speaker 1: hundred vacancies, Is that right? How many judges are we
Speaker 1: talking about and how much difference is this ultimately going
Speaker 1: to make? Well, what we're seeing so far is um
Speaker 1: you know, a great impact on the appellate courts. Fifteen
Speaker 1: circuit court judges uh have been confirmed so far this year.
Speaker 1: That's a very high level UM and we've had seventeen
Speaker 1: trial court judges of course, course that's brought onto the courts.
Speaker 1: That the appellate court number is very important because so
Speaker 1: many cases go no further than the appellate courts. We
Speaker 1: have about maybe eight cases every year decided by the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Last or fifty nine cases we're just decided
Speaker 1: by the thirteen appellate courts. Laura, the appellate courts are
Speaker 1: so important in in decision making because they're the last
Speaker 1: step before the Supreme Court, and so few cases get
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. But how close are they to
Speaker 1: actually turning those appellate courts to conservative It takes a
Speaker 1: long time, it certainly does. But that number fifteen is
Speaker 1: much better than we've seen under the last five presidents. Um,
Speaker 1: and there's more activity coming. Yesterday the President nominated eight
Speaker 1: more judges at the circuit district court level as Congress
Speaker 1: was leaving town for recess, and Mitch McConnell, the majority
Speaker 1: leader in the Senate, filed uh took steps in the
Speaker 1: process to tee up votes when the Senate comes back
Speaker 1: on six more circuit court judges. Okay, let's take a
Speaker 1: step back, take a wide broad view of this. How
Speaker 1: this ranks in terms of accomplishments of the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: How the base feels about it. Is this somethinging that
Speaker 1: they would notice, they would recognize, and that they would support.
Speaker 1: I mean, is this right up there with tax cuts.
Speaker 1: It has an even longer lasting impact potentially because so
Speaker 1: many of these judges are young in their forties and fifties,
Speaker 1: and the tax legislation it could be reversed if Democrats
Speaker 1: retake the Senate. These judges don't have lifetime appointments, and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, there's differing views about this. This is the
Speaker 1: activity has won over a lot of conservative critics of
Speaker 1: the president. Uh, the outside groups on the progressive side
Speaker 1: are deeply concerned. They say these judges could roll back
Speaker 1: civil rights protections, consumer protections, bring up much more pro
Speaker 1: business perspective to courts. Um, gay rights could be at risk. So, um,
Speaker 1: but this is a this is a big deal. This
Speaker 1: could even be bigger than the tax bill. So, Laura,
Speaker 1: look at the demographics of this and Obama tried to
Speaker 1: get diversity on the federal bench. What's happening now. Um,
Speaker 1: there's a very sharp contrast between lot Obama was doing
Speaker 1: in terms of the judges he was nominating and got through,
Speaker 1: compared to what we're seeing under Trump. For instance, under Obama,
Speaker 1: we'll take the circuit court numbers, we had about seventy
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, of the circuit court judges confirmed so far
Speaker 1: are white males under Obama was just thirty three. Obama
Speaker 1: was trying to reverse what he saw under George W. Bush,
Speaker 1: which was a sixty uh for white male judges confirmed.
Speaker 1: And so it's kind of gone back and then some Alright,
Speaker 1: Laura la Van Bloomberg News Congressional reporter a terrific story
Speaker 1: about this very issue on the Bloomberg terminal. I encouraged
Speaker 1: to check it out. Thanks so much, Laura. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Ye.