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 took to subpoenas,
Speaker 1: but the date has been set. On July seventeen, Special
Speaker 1: Counsel Robert Mueller will testify in public before the House
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee and in a closed session before the House
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee, setting up one of the most dramatic hearings
Speaker 1: of the Trump presidency. Joining me as former federal prosecutor
Speaker 1: Ellie Honick, special counsel at Loewenstein Sandler, Ellie, how important
Speaker 1: is Mueller's testimony? Can it live up to all the hype? Well,
Speaker 1: it depends who you ask and who's doing the hyping. Um.
Speaker 1: I do think Mueller's testimony is going to be hugely
Speaker 1: important here. First of all, the vast majority of the
Speaker 1: American poll book has certainly not read the Muller Report,
Speaker 1: and I think doesn't even fully understand or know what's
Speaker 1: in there. And I think that applies to some members
Speaker 1: of Congress as well. Based on the public comments that
Speaker 1: we've seen. So even if Muller just all he does
Speaker 1: is get in front of Congress and read sections of
Speaker 1: his report, I think that will have a major impact.
Speaker 1: But I also think he's got serious questions to answer
Speaker 1: beyond the four corners of his report. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: some of those serious questions. What do you think he
Speaker 1: will answer and what may he evade. So it's interesting
Speaker 1: because when Mueller made his public statement a few weeks ago,
Speaker 1: he said, I don't want to testify him. My report
Speaker 1: is my testimony. And I know there's this mystique that's
Speaker 1: sort of grown around Robert Muller. He's a very deeply
Speaker 1: respected prosecutor and public official for good reason. But but
Speaker 1: guess what. You don't get to just pick and choose
Speaker 1: what you answer in response to a subpoena. You don't
Speaker 1: get to just say, here's my report. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 1: You have to answer questions. Now, there are some legitimate exceptions.
Speaker 1: I think it's perfectly legitimate for him to say that
Speaker 1: relates to an ongoing criminal investigation that relates to a
Speaker 1: sensitive national security issue. Those I think are fine, But
Speaker 1: just saying i'd rather not is not a legitimate basis
Speaker 1: to decline to answer. So look, I think the Congress
Speaker 1: is I think the House is going to be asking
Speaker 1: Mueller about some of the questions that he avoided. Would
Speaker 1: you have charged the president if he was not the president?
Speaker 1: Did you find enough evidence the charge obstruction if the
Speaker 1: president was anybody other than the sitting president. That's a
Speaker 1: hugely important question. I think he'll try to get around that,
Speaker 1: but but I think it's a it's a very fair
Speaker 1: question that needs to be asked now. As you know,
Speaker 1: Trump and his team have raised claims of executive privilege
Speaker 1: and something they call absolute immunity. Could they have a
Speaker 1: Justice Department lawyers sitting there objecting to some of the questions.
Speaker 1: Theoretically they could, and it will be interesting to see
Speaker 1: how they play that. I don't think that they will
Speaker 1: have a White House or d J lawyer sitting there
Speaker 1: because it looks so bad. And if you if think
Speaker 1: just to last week when Hope Pix got to testify
Speaker 1: behind closed doors, there was there were administration lawyers who
Speaker 1: objected about a hundred fifty five times. I think somebody
Speaker 1: counted it up and effectively shut down her testimony easier
Speaker 1: done behind closed doors, much more difficult to do in
Speaker 1: front of the cameras when the whole nation's watching. It
Speaker 1: looks obstructionists. Now, I think there's other ways the White
Speaker 1: House may try to throw itself in front of this.
Speaker 1: They may send a letter, They may try to go
Speaker 1: to court and stop Mueller from testifying. But I don't
Speaker 1: think they have any sort of legitimate legal basis to
Speaker 1: do it. But they may figure, hey, why not let's
Speaker 1: give it a shot. Any anything we can do to
Speaker 1: get a chance to derail this they might take a
Speaker 1: shot at. Now, the Republicans have already said that they're
Speaker 1: going to cross examine Mueller about his alleged conflicts of interest,
Speaker 1: and you can imagine the texts between Struck and Page
Speaker 1: how will how will he do on across examination kind
Speaker 1: of question? Well, so I think we're gonna see very
Speaker 1: much of a ping pong match here. We're going to
Speaker 1: see the Democrats wanting to focus on Russian interference, the
Speaker 1: Pain's involvement, and obstruction of justice, and then we're gonna
Speaker 1: want to see the Republicans, I think, focusing on the
Speaker 1: things that you just talked about. Look, I think Mueller's
Speaker 1: the only goal that Mueller should have and what I
Speaker 1: used to tell witnesses all the time when I was
Speaker 1: a prosecutor's just tell the truth. It's just just fact.
Speaker 1: It's the easiest thing in the world. And I think
Speaker 1: some of those lines of Republican questioning may bear a
Speaker 1: little bit of fruit, and some I think will fall flat.
Speaker 1: I think any suggestion that Mueller's impossibly conflicted and has
Speaker 1: a grudge against the president because of unpaid greens fees
Speaker 1: or something at one of the president's country clubs will
Speaker 1: be ridiculous and will look ridiculous. I think on the
Speaker 1: struct text, I imagine that mother will say these texts
Speaker 1: were inappropriate, and Peter Struck was removed from the case
Speaker 1: and he's been disciplined, and that had no impact on
Speaker 1: any of the work we did. So um, I do
Speaker 1: think that Republicans will try to score points that I
Speaker 1: don't think there's really too much to be gained now.
Speaker 1: Because of the mystique that you said that Robert Mueller has,
Speaker 1: is it likely that he can avoid they can avoid
Speaker 1: the circus like atmosphere that he may fear will happen
Speaker 1: when the Republicans start asking some of these questions. I
Speaker 1: don't think he's gonna be able to prevent Congress from
Speaker 1: becoming a circus like atmosphere. Um. I think he's probably
Speaker 1: better positioned than your average witness to to sort of
Speaker 1: stand toe to toe with these representatives. I think your
Speaker 1: average witness is probably quite intimidated to sit in the
Speaker 1: well of that U. S. House of Representatives. But Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller has testified in Congress dozens of times in his career.
Speaker 1: He's a veteran at this, He's a military veteran as well,
Speaker 1: So I don't think any of this will intimidate him
Speaker 1: in the least. And I do think he'll be able
Speaker 1: to sort of hold his own and maintain more control
Speaker 1: than your average witness would. He's also testified to cross
Speaker 1: examination like questions to some of the very Republicans that
Speaker 1: are on the committee, so he has a little bit
Speaker 1: of experience there now. Um. You know, we often talk
Speaker 1: about how the Watergate hearings seem to shift public sentiment
Speaker 1: in favor of impeachment of Nixon. Does Muller's testimony have
Speaker 1: the same potential or not? Quite sure? I think it's
Speaker 1: well yes and no. I think of all the witnesses
Speaker 1: that that we've have been bandied about as as possibly testifying.
Speaker 1: I think Mueller has the greatest potential to really change things.
Speaker 1: And we've seen the slow incremental increase in the number
Speaker 1: of members of Congress who are earned favor of an
Speaker 1: impeachment inquiry, and we've seen slow upticks in public support
Speaker 1: for that position, but it's still not at a critical
Speaker 1: mass yet. And I think seeing and hearing Robert Mueller
Speaker 1: testify um will be a real important visceral experience for
Speaker 1: the American people. It's one thing to read the Muller Report,
Speaker 1: It's one thing to hear uh to hear people talk
Speaker 1: about it, but it's quite another thing to hear from
Speaker 1: the person who actually made these pretty incredible findings of fact,
Speaker 1: pretty astonishing findings of fact. On the other hand, I
Speaker 1: don't think we're going to get any enormously new factual revelations.
Speaker 1: For example, when John Deane testified, I don't think people
Speaker 1: knew that he was going to implicate himself and the President.
Speaker 1: I think that was all sort of brand new here.
Speaker 1: I think we know the broad outlines of what Mueller found.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a question of adding some color and
Speaker 1: some detail to it and really deciphering Mueller's sort of
Speaker 1: mysterious thought process and where he comes out legally. Just
Speaker 1: about a minute here. What is the question that you
Speaker 1: would ask if you were on the committee, Well, the
Speaker 1: first question would be did you find enough evidence to
Speaker 1: charge obstruction of justice? If not for this person being
Speaker 1: the sitting president, I would want to know more about
Speaker 1: about the ways in which Bar misrepresented Mueller's findings. Remember
Speaker 1: Mueller sent that letter to Bar saying that that Barr
Speaker 1: had misstated the substance, nature, and context of his findings. Well,
Speaker 1: what did you mean by that in what specific ways?
Speaker 1: I would also want to dig into the Russian contacts
Speaker 1: that Mueller saw with the campaign and does he believe
Speaker 1: criminal or not? Does he believe those contacts pose a
Speaker 1: threat to national secure party? He certainly has the expertise
Speaker 1: to answer that based on his time as FBI director.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Ellie, as always for your insight.
Speaker 1: That's Ellie Honick for more Federal prosecutor and special counsel
Speaker 1: at Loewenstein Sandler. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg Dot com Slash Podcast. I'm June Brosso.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg