Speaker 1: Fret Berrara was the most well known U S attorney
Speaker 1: in the country, often referred to as the Sheriff of
Speaker 1: Wall Street. His aggressive prosecution of insider trading in Wall Street,
Speaker 1: corruption gamed in fame, and his war on political corruption
Speaker 1: kept him there. Along with successful prosecutions of banks, terrorists,
Speaker 1: arm dealers, and more. Berrara clearly enjoyed being in the
Speaker 1: media spotlight, and his press conferences announcing major prosecutions always
Speaker 1: featured at least one memorable sound bite. As the defendants
Speaker 1: in this case have now learned the hard road. They
Speaker 1: may have been pretty a lot of confidential information, but
Speaker 1: there was one secret they did not know, and that
Speaker 1: is that we were listening. The bids were rigged and
Speaker 1: the results were preordained. Companies got rich and the public
Speaker 1: got bamboozled. They will not be riding out into the
Speaker 1: sunset to live in luxury off the spoils of their
Speaker 1: fraudulent scheme. During the transition, President Trump asked Barrara to
Speaker 1: stay on as U S Attorney and meeting at Trump Tower.
Speaker 1: So it came as a surprise when Attorney General Jeff
Speaker 1: Sessions on Friday abruptly asked for the resignations of forty
Speaker 1: six U S Attorneys appointed by President Obama, and Barrara
Speaker 1: was included among them, but Bararra refused to resign and
Speaker 1: then tweeted from a personal account on Saturday that he'd
Speaker 1: been fired. The abrupt change by Trump and new Facts
Speaker 1: caused a controversy that is nowhere near over. Our guests
Speaker 1: are both former federal prosecutors, Robert Mint's a partner Mcarter
Speaker 1: and English, and Carrie Cohen, a partner Morrison Forrester bob
Speaker 1: There is a distinction, though it may seem trivial, between
Speaker 1: resigning at the president's request and forcing the president to fire.
Speaker 1: You explain what the difference is, I'm sure, June Um. Basically,
Speaker 1: all the U S. Attorneys around the country serve at
Speaker 1: the pleasure of the president, and its typical for there
Speaker 1: to be a change in office when there is a
Speaker 1: change in administration. So what has happened in the past
Speaker 1: is that when a new president comes in UM, particularly
Speaker 1: from a different political party, that the existing U S.
Speaker 1: Attorneys are expected to at some point submit their resignations
Speaker 1: so that the new president can make up whatever appointments
Speaker 1: he or she feels is appropriate. Uh. There have been
Speaker 1: some instances where people in the Department of Justice have
Speaker 1: refused to submit their resignations when requested, and that forces
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice to to fire them. That has
Speaker 1: generally happened not when they are trying to hold onto
Speaker 1: their jobs or just fighting with the fact that it's
Speaker 1: time for them to leave, but really a situation where
Speaker 1: they are trying to make a statement of on principle,
Speaker 1: where they believe they're being asked to do something that
Speaker 1: they cannot do for legal or principal reasons, and although
Speaker 1: they know the result will be the same that they
Speaker 1: will lose their job, they believe this is now speaking broadly,
Speaker 1: but in most instas, the individuals believe that if they
Speaker 1: resigned there somehow complicit in enforcing some type of policy
Speaker 1: that they that they disagree with, so they forced the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice the Attorney General to fire them rather
Speaker 1: than submit their resignation willingly carry This situation is a
Speaker 1: little bit unusual in that it was widely publicized that
Speaker 1: President Trump had asked pre Berar to stay on, and
Speaker 1: now you have the Justice Department asked him to resign.
Speaker 1: Him refusing to do so. Is the president's change of
Speaker 1: my apparent change of mind here good enough reason for
Speaker 1: somebody like berrar to say, I just refused to submit
Speaker 1: my resignation. I think this is a unique circumstance where
Speaker 1: pret was specifically asked by this president if he would
Speaker 1: stay on, was asked to tell the media at Trump
Speaker 1: Tower that he was asked to stay on, and then
Speaker 1: you know, abrupt change of course a few months later,
Speaker 1: which gives I think the public a sense what would
Speaker 1: change your mind and intervening months and is worried some
Speaker 1: to the public because of course politics should not play
Speaker 1: any role in the Justice Department and in choosing U
Speaker 1: S attorneys. There's also the point being made that Trump
Speaker 1: place to call to Barrara on Thursday, which Barrara refused
Speaker 1: to take because of ethical guidelines prohibiting the president from
Speaker 1: speaking directly to the U S. Attorneys. Finally, the President
Speaker 1: did not respond as to what that call was about
Speaker 1: when asked by the press, and finally, on Sunday, a
Speaker 1: spokesman for the president said Trump just wanted to thank
Speaker 1: him and wish him luck. But Barrara has indicated in
Speaker 1: a statement to The New York Times that he was
Speaker 1: skeptical of that We're going to be discussing that coming
Speaker 1: up on Bloomberg law, what impact that call had and
Speaker 1: what new suspicions it may have led to. Some members
Speaker 1: of Congress have been speculating about the reason Trump decided
Speaker 1: to fire Barra. We'll hear what the ranking minority member
Speaker 1: on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee had to say
Speaker 1: why he thought at the by Pre Barrara was let
Speaker 1: go by the Trump administration because he was in a
Speaker 1: position to potentially investigate President Donald Trump. And Barrara's dismissal
Speaker 1: also led to Twitter. Twitter a lot of tweets from
Speaker 1: one of the Senators, and she said that Senator Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren tweeted that it was about pre having authority over
Speaker 1: Trump Tower. There are all kinds of questions being raised
Speaker 1: about the firing of former Manhattan US Attorney Pre Barrara
Speaker 1: by President Trump on Saturday. A letter from several watched
Speaker 1: organizations sent to Barrara on Wednesday requested the U. S
Speaker 1: Attorney look into whether Trump had violated the Constitution's Emolument's
Speaker 1: clause by benefiting from foreign business deals. The Trump Organization
Speaker 1: has its main offices in New York City, giving Barrara jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: Congressman Elijah Cummings told ABC there could be a connection
Speaker 1: to the firing of Barrara, no doubt about it. When
Speaker 1: they asked about my ments of clause and possible violations
Speaker 1: of it, and and uh the U S Attorney's relationship
Speaker 1: to that. I think that had perhaps something to do
Speaker 1: with it. He wasn't a loan. Senator Elizabeth Warren tweet
Speaker 1: at Donald Trump's personal Twitter account freet Barrara had authority
Speaker 1: over Trump Tower, and you can't fire the rule of law.
Speaker 1: You can't shut down ongoing investigations by career prosecutors. We've
Speaker 1: been talking to two former federal prosecutors, Repert Mints of
Speaker 1: McCarter and English and Carrie Cohen of Morrison Forrester Bob,
Speaker 1: what's your opinion of the of the reaction that this
Speaker 1: was about possible investigations? And Barrara himself said something in
Speaker 1: a tweet about I know what what the Morland Commission
Speaker 1: must have felt like, I can I think at this
Speaker 1: point we don't really know the reason for Mr Berra's
Speaker 1: refusal to submit his resignation, and it's it's really pure
Speaker 1: speculations to suggest that this has anything to do with
Speaker 1: trying to influence or interfere with any ongoing investigation. I
Speaker 1: think further that generally what happens is once the u
Speaker 1: S Attorney steps down on an interim basis, the second
Speaker 1: in command, who is somebody who is intimately he or
Speaker 1: she is intimately involved in running the office, is generally
Speaker 1: a career prosecutor themselves, takes over running the investigation, and
Speaker 1: then on the line prosecutors who are on the ground,
Speaker 1: who are really running the day to day operations of
Speaker 1: these investigations, will go on. So I think it's a
Speaker 1: misperception out in the public that the removal of the
Speaker 1: U S Attorney could in any way influence or is
Speaker 1: likely to influence these investigations. And my experience, these are
Speaker 1: career people who run them, who make the day to
Speaker 1: day decisions. The final call does go to the u
Speaker 1: S Attorney, but in this case it's generally somebody who
Speaker 1: is also very experienced, unlikely a career prosecutor who is
Speaker 1: upping in on an interim basis. Carrie, one of the
Speaker 1: odd things about this was how quickly it seems to
Speaker 1: have happened. I mean, if it's been reported that the
Speaker 1: Attorney General meant with all the U S attorneys last
Speaker 1: week wished them happy hunting shortly but not too long
Speaker 1: before all they were all asked to resign, and that
Speaker 1: after that, President Trump apparently tried to call pre Barra.
Speaker 1: Um Mr Berrara didn't take the phone call because of
Speaker 1: he talked to Main Justice and was told that it
Speaker 1: would violate ethical guidelines as he suspected for him to
Speaker 1: talk directly to the President, and he didn't take the call.
Speaker 1: And the White House is now saying that President Trump
Speaker 1: was simply calling to offer his congratulations on on good
Speaker 1: work done and wish him well. What what is it
Speaker 1: that we should take from all With this sort of
Speaker 1: very quick timeline and then the President trying to call
Speaker 1: pre Barra before this all happens, I'm not sure we
Speaker 1: should take much from any of that at all in
Speaker 1: terms of drawing conclusions. It would all be speculation. But
Speaker 1: to add on too, something we just talked about on
Speaker 1: the show, which is especially true in the Southern District
Speaker 1: of New York, where the career prosecutors follow the facts
Speaker 1: wherever they lead. That is the strong tradition and history
Speaker 1: of that office. So I wouldn't expect sort of going forward,
Speaker 1: anything to change with respect to how they conduct themselves
Speaker 1: in their ongoing investigations or in you know, their ongoing
Speaker 1: cases where they're in court on trial or disappearing in court.
Speaker 1: That will continue. The acting U S Attorney is June Kim,
Speaker 1: he was pre deputy. He's been in the office a
Speaker 1: very long time. I expect him to continue exactly the
Speaker 1: same path as pre so I think for the foreseeable future,
Speaker 1: you're not going to see any change. And in addition,
Speaker 1: that office has a very strong tradition of presidents appointing
Speaker 1: someone to serve as U S Attorney who has served
Speaker 1: previously in the in that office, either as a line
Speaker 1: assistant or as a supervisor. So you know, going forward,
Speaker 1: it's are important to look at who if that tradition continues.
Speaker 1: I would expect the southern districts of New York to continue.
Speaker 1: And it's very long tradition of following the facts without
Speaker 1: fear or favor wherever those facts will lead. Bob Elizabeth
Speaker 1: war and Senator Elizabeth Warren and Patrick Leahy both indicated
Speaker 1: that because of the way this firing was done and
Speaker 1: came out of nowhere, though no one questions that the
Speaker 1: president has the authority to do and other presents have
Speaker 1: done it because it came the way it did. That
Speaker 1: they're going to be a lot tougher on the U
Speaker 1: S Attorneys and questioning them when they come up for confirmation.
Speaker 1: Is that likely to cause problems? No, I don't think
Speaker 1: so at all. I think that's exactly their role. UM.
Speaker 1: The U S Attorney appoint these are are nominated um
Speaker 1: by the President, but they have to be confirmed by
Speaker 1: the Senate, and I think the sentators are intentled to
Speaker 1: ask whatever questions that he or she feels are appropriate
Speaker 1: to ensure that there is the degree of independence that
Speaker 1: has traditionally been the earmark of all the U S.
Speaker 1: Attorney's offices around the country. UM. The practice that of
Speaker 1: removing U S Attorneys has typically been done over time,
Speaker 1: but in other instances, for example, in when President Clinton
Speaker 1: came in, johanet Reno did ask for the immediate resignations
Speaker 1: of all the sitting US Attorneys and that instant as well.
Speaker 1: So it's happened both ways, and I think the important
Speaker 1: thing is that the independence of the U S. Attorney
Speaker 1: in the Department of Justice be maintained. And I'm sure
Speaker 1: that the appointments will be quality appointments, and of the
Speaker 1: Senate will um use their discretion and exercise their authority
Speaker 1: in questioning the appointments. We'll have to leave it at that.
Speaker 1: Thank you both for being on Bloomberg Law. That's repert
Speaker 1: Men's a partner McCarter in English, and carry co on
Speaker 1: apartner Morrison Forrester. Coming up on Bloomberg, the Trump administration
Speaker 1: is trying to stop the groundbreaking lawsuit brought by twenty
Speaker 1: one children against the federal govern from an overclimate change.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg