Speaker 1: Special Investigator Robert Mueller. His investigation into possible Trump campaign
Speaker 1: collusion with Russia and also into possible obstruction of justice
Speaker 1: appears to be moving quickly and aggressively. Mueller's office has
Speaker 1: executed an early morning no knock search warrant at former
Speaker 1: Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's home and appears to be
Speaker 1: digging deeply into Manaforts business dealings over many years. According
Speaker 1: to CNN, Mueller is looking at Manaforts business dealings go
Speaker 1: back going back to two thousand and six. Meanwhile, The
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journals reported that Mueller's office has questioned Deputy
Speaker 1: Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about President Trump's firing of James
Speaker 1: Comey as FBI director as the investigation heats up. Here
Speaker 1: to talk with us about it are Jeff Kramer, a
Speaker 1: managing director at the Berkeley Research Group, and Bradley Moss,
Speaker 1: a partner at Mark's Aid PLC. Bradley they certainly seemed
Speaker 1: to be focusing a lot in Robert Mueller's office on
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manage her. What does
Speaker 1: this tell us about what Mueller is trying to do
Speaker 1: as he moved the investigation forward? Absolutely so it's always
Speaker 1: been kind of understood that there were two easy pieces
Speaker 1: of low hanging fruit for mueller investigation. One was Paul
Speaker 1: Manafort and one was Michael Flynn. Both of them had
Speaker 1: legal exposure on issues that were separate from whatever may
Speaker 1: or may not have happened in terms of the campaign
Speaker 1: and the alleged collusion. But it gave First Director Coma
Speaker 1: when he was running it. Now Robert Muller as he's
Speaker 1: running it and into apply pressure and price and trying
Speaker 1: to gain some leverage on these two senior level Trump
Speaker 1: officials who would have obviously insight into what had gone
Speaker 1: on during the campaign. And for Paul Manafort in particular
Speaker 1: between the years of alleged issues between possible money laundry
Speaker 1: and reporting obligations with respect to him being a foreign
Speaker 1: agent for I believe a political party in Ukraine. It
Speaker 1: all just it was all too easy for Robert Muller
Speaker 1: to focus on him, Michael Flynn to an extent to
Speaker 1: begin their potential prosecution. Jeff they picked, according to The
Speaker 1: New York Times, the investigators the FBI picked the lock
Speaker 1: on man of fororts home to get in, which means
Speaker 1: they got a no knock warrant. What do you need
Speaker 1: to convince a judge to give you a subpoena for
Speaker 1: no knock warrant? Um? Yeah, I mean it's uh, it
Speaker 1: is an extra hurdle. You basically have to show to
Speaker 1: the judge that if you didn't have the no knock warrant,
Speaker 1: that someone might be destroying evidence. Um, you don't see
Speaker 1: it too much. You see it a lot in uh
Speaker 1: in certain kind of violent crime cases, gang cases here
Speaker 1: in Chicago, organized crime cases and the like. But they
Speaker 1: clearly convinced a judge that if it was just a
Speaker 1: regular search warrant h that evidence might be evidence might
Speaker 1: be destroyed. So yeah, they picked a lock and apparently
Speaker 1: woke up his wife. So it was very unusual, uh,
Speaker 1: Mark the Bradley rather the The Times also reported that
Speaker 1: they have the prosecutor is told Manaford that they were
Speaker 1: going to indict him. Um, why would they do something
Speaker 1: like that? Uh? Two possibles is one. It might just
Speaker 1: be a ploy in the sense of trying to see
Speaker 1: if they can intimidate and possibly guarantee the extent that
Speaker 1: they can use that as a means of leverage to
Speaker 1: get him to be more cooperative and to provide more information.
Speaker 1: Of what is arguably the more pertinent and larger target,
Speaker 1: which is whatever did or did not happen during the campaign.
Speaker 1: And the other part is it's a standard tactic that
Speaker 1: prosecutus will often use to kind of give potential criminal
Speaker 1: defendants more or less a preview um in order they're
Speaker 1: trying to get them to complete guilty and avoid the
Speaker 1: necessary expense of the whole simial trial the law. Let's
Speaker 1: give them a preview of here's what we expect to
Speaker 1: be able to indicte you for into prosecuting and convict
Speaker 1: you for. And he was what other episodes is going
Speaker 1: to be. It's not really given the defendense anything they
Speaker 1: wouldn't ultimately go anyways, because it's the entitled to it
Speaker 1: in the context of the trial. So it's either one
Speaker 1: of those, we don't know enough which one it is,
Speaker 1: or it's a combination of both. I think time will
Speaker 1: talent see where exactly the Mueller was going here and
Speaker 1: what he was planning to use leverage wise. With respectrum Manaphort, Jeff.
Speaker 1: That raid came a day after Manafort was interviewed by
Speaker 1: the staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Could some
Speaker 1: of Mueller's aggressiveness. His team's aggressiveness be the result of
Speaker 1: the multiple investigations in the Senate in the House that
Speaker 1: might hurt his investigation. I think there there could be
Speaker 1: something to that. I mean, this is a little bit
Speaker 1: unique where you have an investigation, but you have several
Speaker 1: bodies also looking at this. I don't want to say,
Speaker 1: you know, mudding the waters if you will um with
Speaker 1: other witnesses. So well, I'm sure Director Mueller is somewhat
Speaker 1: coordinating and knows what's going on with the other piece
Speaker 1: of the investigation. It does make it a little tougher.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you had your druthers, if you were
Speaker 1: a prosecutor or an investor FBI agent, you want to
Speaker 1: keep these things clean. So that does make it does
Speaker 1: make it harder. And therefore because it as a result, uh,
Speaker 1: Director Mueller I think is going very hard and no
Speaker 1: nonsense approach. I mean we saw that with the team
Speaker 1: he has constructed, which Franks is one of the better
Speaker 1: prosecutorial investigative teams going on in the country right now. Well, Brad,
Speaker 1: what look at it from the other side, If you're
Speaker 1: on the congressional side of this, one of the one
Speaker 1: of the committees that's investigating. You see Mueller acting very
Speaker 1: aggressively here, apparently trying to move very fast. Are you
Speaker 1: more or less inclined to want to take your time
Speaker 1: and let Mueller give Mueller space or do you want
Speaker 1: to get your stuff into the into hearings more quickly. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's competing um institutional interests and congret
Speaker 1: ends are in constitutional prerogatives. I mean, obviously Congress, even
Speaker 1: in their most arrogant nature, wouldn't want to interfere in
Speaker 1: getting the way of what Mr Mueller is doing. But
Speaker 1: at the same time, they have their own prerogatives, they
Speaker 1: have their own views on how this should be investigating,
Speaker 1: and what they in their respective authorities and rights as
Speaker 1: the heads of different committees in the Senate and the House,
Speaker 1: should be allowed to investigate. And we've seen there's already
Speaker 1: a little ruined fight possibly between Mr Mueller and the
Speaker 1: Senate Judiciary Committee over whether or not um to high
Speaker 1: level a FBI official to be allowed to testify before
Speaker 1: Senate Judiciary without the circumstances of the firing of Director Combe.
Speaker 1: So it's this is not unheardably seen this problem in
Speaker 1: the past. It was most notably an issue during a
Speaker 1: Roan contra. We're talking with Bradley Moss of Mark Zad
Speaker 1: and Jeff Kramer of the Berkeley Research Group about the
Speaker 1: investigation into possible Trump campaign collision with Russia and possible
Speaker 1: instruction of justice being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller
Speaker 1: and his team of prosecutors. The Wall Street Journal reported
Speaker 1: that those investigators have spoken with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: who happens to be the official who over who appointed
Speaker 1: and oversees Special Investigator Mueller because Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Speaker 1: is recused from the Russia investigation. Jeff, it's a little
Speaker 1: bit unusual to have investigators ask questions and you know,
Speaker 1: interrogate the person who oversees their office, isn't it. Yes,
Speaker 1: you know, irony abounds on this one because as you say,
Speaker 1: Uhdud roses eignd appointed Mueller and now Mueller and his
Speaker 1: investigators are talking to him. But you'd have to, I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're if the question is was the president's firing
Speaker 1: of Jim Comey related all or is it a bullet
Speaker 1: point in a prosecution for obstruction of justice? You have
Speaker 1: to talk to the guy who wrote the memo upon
Speaker 1: which the President said he relied. So it's a logical interview.
Speaker 1: It's an interview that had to happen. But it's certainly
Speaker 1: uh an odd one. Uh, certainly given the situation, Brad.
Speaker 1: You spoke before about Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley saying
Speaker 1: the Senate Council's preparing subpoenas for two FBI officials that
Speaker 1: the d o J is preventing from being interviewed over
Speaker 1: the COMI firing. How much strength do congressional subpoenas have
Speaker 1: compared to those of Robert Mueller, let's say, and will
Speaker 1: there be a fight over these subpoenas? Oh, they're there.
Speaker 1: They go through a slightly different process that Congressional subpoenas
Speaker 1: are different in the sense that if someone refuses to
Speaker 1: comply with the congressional subpoena, then Congress has to actually
Speaker 1: more or less go to the d o J to
Speaker 1: enforce it and to seek criminal contempt um charges against
Speaker 1: the individuals who declined it. Whereas of Robert Mueller issues
Speaker 1: of subpoena, he is working out of the d J,
Speaker 1: so he he doesn't have to go to that entire
Speaker 1: bureaucratic process. He can more or less circumvent it. He
Speaker 1: is the person who would see the charges. But I
Speaker 1: think there will be a bunch way some type of
Speaker 1: resolution behind the scenes, as the various inclustional UH players
Speaker 1: kind of butt head in terms of these various UH
Speaker 1: is the information we're going to copy fire? I think
Speaker 1: right now just a lot of political posture. Well, Jeff,
Speaker 1: one of the things though, I mean you mentioned irony.
Speaker 1: It's it's a bit confusing sometimes when you have a
Speaker 1: lot of you know, you have senated how's committees working,
Speaker 1: you have the Attorney General confused recused, you have the
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General appointing a special prosecutor. They're all racing
Speaker 1: against each other to some degree to get information. And
Speaker 1: if in fact, you know, how is it, you know,
Speaker 1: how is it that somebody like Rosenstein ends up being
Speaker 1: a witness in this but isn't recused himself from the investigation,
Speaker 1: and then all would happen. Yeah, he might have to be.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of ways this plays out, And
Speaker 1: as you indicated, Uh, there's a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of cooks in this kitchen. If it does get to
Speaker 1: the point where this is a couple of steps on
Speaker 1: the line, Roseneside could be a witness and if they
Speaker 1: think there's obstruction and legal minds different whether or not
Speaker 1: that charge can be brought against the sitting president. But
Speaker 1: let's put that to the side for a second. Um,
Speaker 1: roses I would have to presumably recuse him self from
Speaker 1: technically overseeing h. Mueller's investigation. Uh. And then we go
Speaker 1: to the third person. Uh, and she's been in d
Speaker 1: O J for a long period of time. But there
Speaker 1: would have to be someone else appointed other than the
Speaker 1: a G and the Deputy Attorney General. Uh. So that's
Speaker 1: you know, they say that's a few steps down the line, um,
Speaker 1: but you know it's not out of the realm of possibility.
Speaker 1: If again, charges can indeed be brought by the president
Speaker 1: in the first instance, Brad, this very in aggressive investigation
Speaker 1: of Mueller's almost scorched earth tactics in some instances. Are
Speaker 1: there any downsides to this? Well, yes and no. I
Speaker 1: mean the concern of going this hardness fast is that
Speaker 1: there's going to be an accusation in the post of
Speaker 1: the media by certain parties that he's on a mission
Speaker 1: to find and purge traps and is not a mission
Speaker 1: to find someone the prosion to justify his missing. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, the part of the reason he is
Speaker 1: it's like you're probably going this hard, this fast, because
Speaker 1: the longer drags out, the longer he faces the problem
Speaker 1: that kind of stars face during the Clinton years, which
Speaker 1: is the investors just kept going and kept going and
Speaker 1: kept going, and it became a political of atross and
Speaker 1: its own right, and it seems like he was just
Speaker 1: gonna go forever. I don't think that's what Robert Mueller's
Speaker 1: trying to do. I think He's trying to get to
Speaker 1: whatever the underlying facts are, what the prosecutions need to
Speaker 1: be brought to bring and that's the end of it.
Speaker 1: He wants to end it. So, Jeff, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: probably impossible to figure out a timeline, but you know,
Speaker 1: in about forty five seconds, do does it look like
Speaker 1: Mueller might be moving towards indictments based on what we're
Speaker 1: hearing now, I think you'd have to say yes. And
Speaker 1: I agree with the statement that was just has just made.
Speaker 1: Mueller has a reputation as being no nonsense. He's going
Speaker 1: to go forward. It's either there or it's not. And
Speaker 1: I think it's not to come full circle he is
Speaker 1: going to the low hanging fruit with Manafort um, and
Speaker 1: I think those charges are probably going to be brought.
Speaker 1: It's pretty straightforward. If he made a certain amount of
Speaker 1: money overseas and didn't declare that, or worked with certain
Speaker 1: groups and didn't declare that, that's a viable charge independent
Speaker 1: of anything going on in the White House. So I
Speaker 1: think we are looking at charges relatively soon against Mr Manafort. Well,
Speaker 1: our thanks to Brad Bradley Moss at Mark's Aid PLC
Speaker 1: and Jeff Kramer, Managing director at the Berkeley Research Group,
Speaker 1: for being on Bloomberg Laud Day to talk about Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller's investigation into possible obstruction of justice and possible Trump
Speaker 1: campaign collusion and who knows what else. Uh, We're gonna
Speaker 1: be following this story obviously, and I'm sure it's not
Speaker 1: the last time in Bloomberg Law we're going to be
Speaker 1: talking about it.