Speaker 1: Robert Mueller's appointment a special Council marks a pivotal moment
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump's presidency and the investigation into possible links
Speaker 1: between his campaign and the Russian government. The former FBI
Speaker 1: director will have broad powers, including the authority to pursue
Speaker 1: criminal charges. He won't have complete independence, but he will
Speaker 1: have a longer lease than a traditional federal prosecutor would have.
Speaker 1: With us to discuss the appointment and what it could
Speaker 1: mean are William Wild, former governor of Massachusetts and also
Speaker 1: former U S Attorney in Boston, where one of the
Speaker 1: lawyers working under him was Robert Mueller. And William Banks,
Speaker 1: who was a director of the Institute for National Security
Speaker 1: and counter Terrorism at Syracuse Law School. Welcome to you both, Governor. UM,
Speaker 1: I do want to get into how much both power
Speaker 1: and independence Bob Muller will have. But but if I
Speaker 1: could just briefly get your reaction to the appointment of
Speaker 1: Mueller by the Deputy Attorney General. Was this a good move? Oh?
Speaker 1: I think it's a good move for the entire country
Speaker 1: and and for the world. I mean, I've known Bob
Speaker 1: Mueller for a long time. I I hired him to
Speaker 1: the San Francisco U S. Attorney's office. Way back in
Speaker 1: two he came to Boston where I was the U
Speaker 1: S Attorney and became head of the Criminal Division, the
Speaker 1: deputy U S Attorney. Then he succeeded me as U
Speaker 1: S Attorney. I went to Washington to be head of
Speaker 1: the Criminal Division and main Justice. He succeeded me in
Speaker 1: that position. And uh, you know, he's just the straightest
Speaker 1: guy I've ever met in my life and very able.
Speaker 1: So I think the country and the world can have
Speaker 1: confidence that no stone will be left unturned. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, there's gonna be no slanting of anything, there
Speaker 1: will not be a witch hunt, there will not be
Speaker 1: politics involved in this investigation. Director Banks, the office into
Speaker 1: which he is stepping is different from the office occupied
Speaker 1: by independent councils like Kenneth Starr and Lawrence Walsh. And
Speaker 1: I wanted you to explain just what the differences are,
Speaker 1: how he is not entirely separate from the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: It's a good question, because Governor Weld said, because this
Speaker 1: is Bob Mueller, the differences that we can identify now
Speaker 1: aren't going to matter so much because of his tremendous
Speaker 1: integrity and the reputation that he brings to this assignment.
Speaker 1: Absolutely no one will have any doubt about the independence
Speaker 1: of the investigation, or, as the Governor said, the thoroughness
Speaker 1: that said, the regulations now are Justice Department regulations. So
Speaker 1: unlike the the independent councils of old, the Lawrence Walsh
Speaker 1: and ken Starr investigations and others, this one is not
Speaker 1: authorized by statute. It's authorized by the Department itself. So
Speaker 1: in theory and in practice, Mueller will report to the
Speaker 1: Attorney General. UH So he's he's uh, he's authorized under
Speaker 1: this uh, this notice from Mr Rosenstein to conduct the
Speaker 1: investigation that was described and confirmed James Colemey and his
Speaker 1: testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. He's authorized to look
Speaker 1: into any links or coordination between the Russian government and
Speaker 1: those associated with the Trump campaign. And he matters that
Speaker 1: arose or could rise directly from that investigation and any
Speaker 1: other matters within the scope of federal law. So it's
Speaker 1: a very broad uh mandate. And and indeed, in theory
Speaker 1: he could be questioned by the Attorney General. But because
Speaker 1: it's Bob Muller, I think none of us will worry
Speaker 1: about that. Governor. Well, one difference is that Ken Starr
Speaker 1: could not be fired by the president. Um as if
Speaker 1: I understand this correctly, Donald Trump could actually direct that
Speaker 1: that Bob Muller be fired. Do you think that will
Speaker 1: affect his work, make it more difficult for him? No,
Speaker 1: it's not going to slow him down one iota because
Speaker 1: he wouldn't care if somebody did the wrong thing and
Speaker 1: and fired him. He's just going to get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of it. He would be a complete terrier. Uh.
Speaker 1: And as I say it's gonna be, it's gonna be
Speaker 1: even handed, I would expect. And by the way, special
Speaker 1: counsel don't have to indict anybody just because they have
Speaker 1: that power. And and you know, when I was head
Speaker 1: of the Criminal Division and Main Justice, I operated under
Speaker 1: that uh independent Council statute. And my memory is more
Speaker 1: often than not no charges were filed. So people shouldn't
Speaker 1: rush to assume that they're going to be criminal indictments
Speaker 1: out of this. Uh. My My guess is that under
Speaker 1: all the circumstances, uh, Mr Muller might find it appropriate
Speaker 1: to issue a report of his findings with the FBI's
Speaker 1: findings at the end of the investigation, which he certainly
Speaker 1: has the power to do. I mean, even a grand
Speaker 1: jury can issue a report of its findings if it
Speaker 1: if it wants to, and that would I think make
Speaker 1: everybody feel better. We're talking about Robert Mueller's appointment as
Speaker 1: special counsel with William Well, the former governor of Massachusetts
Speaker 1: and a man who hired Robert Mueller for the U. S.
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office in Boston, and William Banks, he is the
Speaker 1: director of the Institute for National Security and counter Terrorism
Speaker 1: at Syracuse Law School. Governor World, you were talking a
Speaker 1: moment ago about the possibility that this wouldn't end up
Speaker 1: with any criminal charges but instead a report. How long
Speaker 1: would you expect this whole process to take this this
Speaker 1: the allegations here are are quite quite varied, and it
Speaker 1: seems like there are a number of prongs and that
Speaker 1: it could be could be certainly months before we get
Speaker 1: a resolution for this. Oh yeah, it could be months,
Speaker 1: but that's nothing in complicated criminal investigations. You know, a
Speaker 1: typical long lead time grand jury investigation in the financial area,
Speaker 1: it might take eighteen months. But they're not going to
Speaker 1: let this happen. The Bureau is going to bring all
Speaker 1: its resources to bear and uh, you know it'll it'll
Speaker 1: be counted in months, but I think the number will
Speaker 1: probably be you know, fewer than six, uh and you know,
Speaker 1: three or four if if possible. But it's a complex
Speaker 1: investigations the the interest. An interesting point that I think
Speaker 1: you mentioned earlier is the relationship between the Justice Department
Speaker 1: investigation and congressional investigations, and conflicts can arise there when
Speaker 1: Congress immunizes witnesses in order to give testimony publicly before Congress,
Speaker 1: because once that happens, it's very difficult, if not impossible,
Speaker 1: to prosecute the person criminally, because you have to prove
Speaker 1: that none of your leads, none of your evidence, came
Speaker 1: from the public testimony. That happened with Colonel Oliver North
Speaker 1: and I ran contra uh in when I was in
Speaker 1: Washington handling that one, and he could never be prosecuted.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying he would have been, but he never
Speaker 1: could be. And if I were Michael Flynn's lawyer right now,
Speaker 1: I would be running, not walking, to the Senate Committee
Speaker 1: saying we're happy to testify in front of your August bodies.
Speaker 1: Just understand, my man's a witness, so we'll be there
Speaker 1: under immunity and boy, do we have a tale to
Speaker 1: tell that can be very tangy to Congress, and they
Speaker 1: feel a responsibility to get facts out there, just as
Speaker 1: the Justice Department does. But we'll see, we'll see how
Speaker 1: that rolls out, Director Banks. If there are no criminal
Speaker 1: charges that are likely to come from this, what will
Speaker 1: be the ultimate use of the final report? Uh? From
Speaker 1: Mr Muller, I think Governor Well put it well. Many
Speaker 1: times these investigations do not lead to criminal indictments, but
Speaker 1: instead to a report, and the report its purposes not
Speaker 1: to answer public questions about what happened, but to determine
Speaker 1: a set of foreign intelligence and counter intelligence objectives that
Speaker 1: may or may not have criminal attributes. So it will
Speaker 1: be important to put the possibility of criminal conduct in
Speaker 1: this area to rest. What what was not emphasized in
Speaker 1: the appointment of Mueller for obvious reasons, is that the
Speaker 1: underlying investigation remains about the influences of Russia on the
Speaker 1: presidential election. So whatever Congress does going forward will certainly
Speaker 1: focus on that question. It's a very important question. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, it could get into questions about whether sanctions
Speaker 1: are appropriate in response to the activity of a hostile
Speaker 1: foreign power, whether the oversight powers of Congress have revealed
Speaker 1: something about fraud or abuse in the executive branch, and
Speaker 1: whether Congress might need new legislative measures to protect our
Speaker 1: electoral system. What about I'm sorry, just what about Trump's
Speaker 1: possible obstruction of justice? Who was investigating that? Well, that
Speaker 1: would be Mr Mueller. It's possible for Congress to conduct
Speaker 1: its own investigation, but to the extent there's criminal wrongdoing
Speaker 1: that's encompassed in the Justice Department writ governor world Uh
Speaker 1: the um his uh. Mr Muller's law firm, Wilmer Hale
Speaker 1: is old law firm apparently represented Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner,
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort, all players in this whole whole affair, and
Speaker 1: in Richard Painter, the former chief astic ethics officer in
Speaker 1: the in the George W. Bush administration, has suggested that
Speaker 1: Bob Mauler might need to recuse himself from decisions involving
Speaker 1: those people because of the involvement of his former law firm.
Speaker 1: If that happens, Um, how much of a complication is
Speaker 1: that for this investigation? You know, I'm not sure I
Speaker 1: see Bob needing to recuse himself because of relationships of
Speaker 1: his former law firm. Uh. You know, if he personally
Speaker 1: worked on those cases, which I very much doubt, that
Speaker 1: would be a different matter. But I'm not I'm not
Speaker 1: sure I see that as a big stumbling uh block
Speaker 1: to his investigation and Director Banks. Do we need a
Speaker 1: select committee or some other kind of independent commission in
Speaker 1: addition to Muller's investigation and those already going on in Congress?
Speaker 1: I think to focus on the underlying question of the
Speaker 1: Russian involvement in the election and future threats to the
Speaker 1: integrity of our electoral system, something like an independent commission
Speaker 1: would be a very a good idea. It's it's follows
Speaker 1: a different path and has different objectives than an investigation
Speaker 1: of any association of the Trump campaign with this matter. Governor, Well,
Speaker 1: let me just give you the last word that there's
Speaker 1: a Law Street Journal editorial today that said that Mr
Speaker 1: Muller will be quote under pressure to bring criminal indictments
Speaker 1: of some kind to justify his existence. Uh. They worry
Speaker 1: that he will become also quote de facto untouchable. Well,
Speaker 1: we only have about thirty seconds left. Let maybe I
Speaker 1: could get your reaction to that. Well, if anybody's not
Speaker 1: going to buckle the pressure, it's going to be Bob Mueller.
Speaker 1: He has nothing, nothing to prove to anybody. He doesn't
Speaker 1: have to go out and make a name for himself.
Speaker 1: He's He's made a great name and life for himself already.
Speaker 1: So I don't think that he would succumb in any
Speaker 1: degree to political pressure. It wouldn't matter who was yelling
Speaker 1: at him or pointing fingers. That's one advantage of having
Speaker 1: led a long, good and productive life, as he has. Well.
Speaker 1: People yelling at other people and pointing fingers is what
Speaker 1: happens in this town, so there may well be some
Speaker 1: of that. I want to thank our guests William Well,
Speaker 1: former Massachusetts governor, and William Banks, director of the Institute
Speaker 1: for National Security and counter Terrorism at Syracuse Law School,
Speaker 1: for joining us here on Bloomberg Law coming up. The
Speaker 1: eye word is in the air. That's impeachment. But is
Speaker 1: it perhaps Democrats who have something to worry about and
Speaker 1: maybe they should be careful. We'll discuss discuss that in
Speaker 1: a few moments. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg