WEBVTT - Comey Memo Sparks Trump Impeachment Talks (Audio)

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:03.440
<v Speaker 1>Day by day, it seems that new revelations about President

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.360
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump make what were once whispers of impeachment into

0:00:07.440 --> 0:00:11.560
<v Speaker 1>calls for impeachment. This morning, Democratic Congressman Al Green of

0:00:11.600 --> 0:00:14.800
<v Speaker 1>Texas became the first to call for Trump's impeachment on

0:00:14.840 --> 0:00:18.880
<v Speaker 1>the floor of the House. We cannot allow this to

0:00:19.000 --> 0:00:24.119
<v Speaker 1>go unchecked. The president is not above the law. The

0:00:24.200 --> 0:00:28.360
<v Speaker 1>latest bombshell was yesterday's report that former FBI Director James

0:00:28.400 --> 0:00:31.520
<v Speaker 1>Coomy documented in a memo that Trump asked him at

0:00:31.520 --> 0:00:35.040
<v Speaker 1>an Oval Office meeting to shut down the investigation into

0:00:35.080 --> 0:00:39.040
<v Speaker 1>former National Security Director Michael Flynn. The White House has

0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:43.560
<v Speaker 1>denied Komby's version of events that followed monday shocking disclosure

0:00:43.600 --> 0:00:46.680
<v Speaker 1>that the President revealed classified information in a meeting with

0:00:46.760 --> 0:00:52.279
<v Speaker 1>Russian Foreign Minister's Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kisleyak, and

0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:55.720
<v Speaker 1>Trump's admission last Thursday that he fired Coomy over the

0:00:55.880 --> 0:00:59.720
<v Speaker 1>quote made up story about him in Russia, followed by

0:00:59.760 --> 0:01:02.520
<v Speaker 1>a failed threat in a tweet the next day that

0:01:02.640 --> 0:01:06.840
<v Speaker 1>comey better hope that there are no tapes of our conversations.

0:01:07.040 --> 0:01:10.760
<v Speaker 1>Did Trump commit a crime or an impeachable offense or

0:01:10.920 --> 0:01:14.840
<v Speaker 1>neither joining me? Are Richard Painter, professor at the University

0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:18.120
<v Speaker 1>of Minnesota Law School and former ethics lawyer for George W.

0:01:18.319 --> 0:01:23.360
<v Speaker 1>Bush and Bradley Moss, partner at Mark Z. Many people

0:01:23.440 --> 0:01:28.399
<v Speaker 1>are questioning whether Trump's actions constituted obstruction of justice. But

0:01:28.760 --> 0:01:32.280
<v Speaker 1>there's a distinction between the criminal offense of obstruction of

0:01:32.360 --> 0:01:37.240
<v Speaker 1>justice and the impeachable offense of obstruction of justice. Mark,

0:01:37.520 --> 0:01:40.600
<v Speaker 1>Let's start with the criminal offense. Do his actions make

0:01:40.640 --> 0:01:50.080
<v Speaker 1>out a case for obstruction under federal criminal statutes? Richard, Yes,

0:01:51.080 --> 0:01:56.680
<v Speaker 1>I think that there is substantial evidence of criminal obstruction

0:01:56.720 --> 0:02:01.960
<v Speaker 1>of joice. I believe that they investigated by an independent

0:02:02.000 --> 0:02:04.400
<v Speaker 1>special prosecutor, as well as by the House and the

0:02:04.440 --> 0:02:12.360
<v Speaker 1>Senate Judiciary competty um. But the memo documented conversation that

0:02:12.520 --> 0:02:16.359
<v Speaker 1>in and of itself probably would not arise to criminal

0:02:16.919 --> 0:02:19.720
<v Speaker 1>obstruction of justice. But we put that in the context

0:02:19.800 --> 0:02:25.160
<v Speaker 1>as the President asking the FBI director to affirm his

0:02:25.280 --> 0:02:30.160
<v Speaker 1>loyalty to the president. The fact that the FBI director

0:02:30.440 --> 0:02:34.280
<v Speaker 1>was fired, and that the President has acknowledged that his

0:02:34.440 --> 0:02:39.600
<v Speaker 1>firing of the FBI director was connected to the Russia investigation,

0:02:40.600 --> 0:02:44.080
<v Speaker 1>and then the fact that General Flynn was going to

0:02:44.160 --> 0:02:48.919
<v Speaker 1>turn state's evidence in the fact asked for a immunity

0:02:49.240 --> 0:02:54.840
<v Speaker 1>prosecution in return for his testimony, which would of course

0:02:54.880 --> 0:02:59.080
<v Speaker 1>give everyone connected with a Trump Russia scandal a motive

0:02:59.160 --> 0:03:02.760
<v Speaker 1>to want to shut down the plant investigation. We put

0:03:02.760 --> 0:03:06.680
<v Speaker 1>all these facts together, and I think there is what

0:03:06.800 --> 0:03:10.960
<v Speaker 1>I would characterize a strong evidence. It's a president and

0:03:11.560 --> 0:03:15.800
<v Speaker 1>in criminal um obstruction of justice, but it's it's certainly

0:03:15.800 --> 0:03:18.560
<v Speaker 1>not moping and shot chic at all. It needs to

0:03:18.560 --> 0:03:23.960
<v Speaker 1>investigate further. And Bradley, do you agree with that? Yeah,

0:03:24.000 --> 0:03:26.480
<v Speaker 1>by and large, I mean I think that the evidence

0:03:26.560 --> 0:03:29.359
<v Speaker 1>we've gotten right now is very strong, circumstantial evidence for

0:03:29.400 --> 0:03:32.800
<v Speaker 1>at least the impeachment charge of a structal justice UH

0:03:32.880 --> 0:03:35.480
<v Speaker 1>to to supplement what Richard was saying in terms of

0:03:35.520 --> 0:03:38.880
<v Speaker 1>the criminal side. The one thing that might save the president,

0:03:38.920 --> 0:03:41.160
<v Speaker 1>which is a legal nuance a highly doubt he actually

0:03:41.200 --> 0:03:43.520
<v Speaker 1>is aware of, is that, as far as the criminal

0:03:43.560 --> 0:03:47.920
<v Speaker 1>courts have typically been concerned in a pending FBI investigation

0:03:48.080 --> 0:03:51.200
<v Speaker 1>in and of itself would not qualify as the type

0:03:51.240 --> 0:03:55.480
<v Speaker 1>of proceeding that would implicate any of the obstruction of

0:03:55.520 --> 0:03:59.400
<v Speaker 1>justice criminal provisions under the US Code. So it's a

0:03:59.480 --> 0:04:03.480
<v Speaker 1>slightly a loophole which just by happenstance would possibly save

0:04:03.480 --> 0:04:05.960
<v Speaker 1>the president from a criminal charge if that was ever feasible,

0:04:06.280 --> 0:04:09.560
<v Speaker 1>But in an impeachment context, he wouldn't be quite as limited.

0:04:09.600 --> 0:04:12.680
<v Speaker 1>I think we do have some good circumstantial evidence. I

0:04:12.720 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>don't believe all the pieces have quite moved into place yet, though.

0:04:16.320 --> 0:04:21.600
<v Speaker 1>Impeachment is a different kind of standard, and the Constitution

0:04:21.760 --> 0:04:27.080
<v Speaker 1>uses the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors. So, Richard, just

0:04:27.480 --> 0:04:30.200
<v Speaker 1>in thirty seconds we will continue with this. But in

0:04:30.279 --> 0:04:34.880
<v Speaker 1>thirty seconds is the case easier to make out an

0:04:34.880 --> 0:04:42.000
<v Speaker 1>obstruction of justice claim under an impeachment standard? Well, of course,

0:04:42.120 --> 0:04:46.200
<v Speaker 1>impeachment is a very political process. That in Congress has

0:04:46.480 --> 0:04:49.920
<v Speaker 1>impeached the president for lying under oath about his text life.

0:04:50.160 --> 0:04:53.039
<v Speaker 1>I couldn't give a rap behind about present sex life,

0:04:53.120 --> 0:04:55.640
<v Speaker 1>but I don't care about the Russians in Russian esta

0:04:56.200 --> 0:04:59.640
<v Speaker 1>by the United States, Russian agents so working in the

0:04:59.720 --> 0:05:04.640
<v Speaker 1>NAST Security Council and so forth. Uh so, Um, that's

0:05:04.640 --> 0:05:07.800
<v Speaker 1>going to be up to Congress to determine whether there's

0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:11.360
<v Speaker 1>been obstruction of justice or whether there's been other invatuable

0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:16.479
<v Speaker 1>offenses that whether to remove the president. Uh, you know,

0:05:16.520 --> 0:05:20.480
<v Speaker 1>the thought process obstruction of justice was the main charge

0:05:20.520 --> 0:05:24.880
<v Speaker 1>in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment cases. The Constitution

0:05:25.080 --> 0:05:29.599
<v Speaker 1>uses the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors, and they include corruption,

0:05:29.640 --> 0:05:33.560
<v Speaker 1>abuse of power, and undermining the rule of law and democracy.

0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:38.920
<v Speaker 1>Many people are questioning whether President Donald Trump's actions constituted

0:05:38.960 --> 0:05:42.000
<v Speaker 1>obstruction of justice, and we've been talking about that with

0:05:42.120 --> 0:05:45.360
<v Speaker 1>Richard Painter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School

0:05:45.400 --> 0:05:49.480
<v Speaker 1>and former ethics lawyer for George W. Bush and Bradley Moss,

0:05:49.640 --> 0:05:54.839
<v Speaker 1>partner at Mark Z Bradley. Let's talk about obstruction of

0:05:54.920 --> 0:05:59.839
<v Speaker 1>justice in the context of the information we learned about

0:06:00.360 --> 0:06:04.200
<v Speaker 1>the meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey love Rob and

0:06:04.279 --> 0:06:09.679
<v Speaker 1>Ambassador kisleyak Um. Although it was it has been said

0:06:09.839 --> 0:06:14.960
<v Speaker 1>many times that President Trump has the ability to declassify

0:06:15.200 --> 0:06:20.360
<v Speaker 1>information on the spot, how do you view that, Well, No,

0:06:20.440 --> 0:06:24.920
<v Speaker 1>it's very true that under Article to Authority, the president

0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:28.840
<v Speaker 1>can do pretty much whatever he wants with classified information.

0:06:28.880 --> 0:06:32.320
<v Speaker 1>All classified information and all the procedures for deeming something

0:06:32.360 --> 0:06:37.520
<v Speaker 1>classified emanate from the presidency, and every president has that authority.

0:06:37.600 --> 0:06:41.120
<v Speaker 1>So the president couldn't theory post the nuclear launch codes

0:06:41.160 --> 0:06:42.719
<v Speaker 1>if you wanted on Twitter, and there would be no

0:06:42.839 --> 0:06:46.240
<v Speaker 1>criminal provision to take action against him, but there would

0:06:46.240 --> 0:06:49.560
<v Speaker 1>be a basis to impeach him for abuse of a

0:06:49.880 --> 0:06:53.240
<v Speaker 1>far sorry, for abusive power and failure to faithfully execute

0:06:53.240 --> 0:06:55.479
<v Speaker 1>his office. And that's kind of what we have here,

0:06:55.560 --> 0:06:58.600
<v Speaker 1>is that, yes, as a criminal matter, the president could

0:06:58.640 --> 0:07:00.840
<v Speaker 1>share whatever he wanted with the Russian officials in the

0:07:00.920 --> 0:07:04.479
<v Speaker 1>Oval Office, but from the context of his position and

0:07:04.680 --> 0:07:09.920
<v Speaker 1>improperly executing his duties to share such sensitive details which

0:07:09.920 --> 0:07:13.320
<v Speaker 1>have been provided only on condition of confidentiality from an

0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:17.040
<v Speaker 1>intelligence partner, which put the asset at risk, which had

0:07:17.040 --> 0:07:19.680
<v Speaker 1>not been coordinated with other agencies to make sure all

0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:23.000
<v Speaker 1>proper procedures were followed first, to just off the cuff

0:07:23.320 --> 0:07:26.240
<v Speaker 1>describe that information to the Russian officials could in and

0:07:26.240 --> 0:07:29.040
<v Speaker 1>of itself be viewed as a basis for impeachment. But

0:07:29.120 --> 0:07:31.480
<v Speaker 1>if we ever get to that point, I don't necessarily

0:07:31.480 --> 0:07:34.080
<v Speaker 1>think we're emnestly and convinced we're there yet. But if

0:07:34.080 --> 0:07:36.000
<v Speaker 1>we ever do get to that point, I think that'll

0:07:36.040 --> 0:07:38.760
<v Speaker 1>be icing on the cake. If this president gets impeached,

0:07:38.920 --> 0:07:40.880
<v Speaker 1>it's not going to be what happened with the Russians

0:07:40.920 --> 0:07:44.120
<v Speaker 1>in the Oval Office. Richard. It does seem like impeachment

0:07:44.440 --> 0:07:48.400
<v Speaker 1>is if at all, a long way away, considering that

0:07:48.480 --> 0:07:53.160
<v Speaker 1>both Houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans. So what

0:07:53.280 --> 0:07:57.080
<v Speaker 1>would be the next step the Special Council, Independent Commissions,

0:07:57.280 --> 0:08:00.320
<v Speaker 1>Lect Congressional Committee. What would you see as the best

0:08:00.400 --> 0:08:04.080
<v Speaker 1>next step? Well, I think that there is going to

0:08:04.160 --> 0:08:08.000
<v Speaker 1>need to see an investigation continue investigation of the Russia

0:08:08.520 --> 0:08:12.520
<v Speaker 1>uh A connection by the House and Senate intelligence committees,

0:08:13.120 --> 0:08:15.760
<v Speaker 1>and the Republicans are going to have to very forcefully

0:08:15.840 --> 0:08:20.560
<v Speaker 1>supportment investigation. The Republican Party has never in its history

0:08:20.880 --> 0:08:25.360
<v Speaker 1>foot for shielding Russian agents and Russian espionage inside the

0:08:25.440 --> 0:08:29.640
<v Speaker 1>United States and other subbursive activities they've been really going on.

0:08:29.760 --> 0:08:32.040
<v Speaker 1>The Russian has been doing this since the nineteen seventeen

0:08:32.720 --> 0:08:36.440
<v Speaker 1>Russian Revolution, trying to destabilize Western democracies. We just thought

0:08:36.600 --> 0:08:40.160
<v Speaker 1>Gramps this last week. I don't think the Republicans are

0:08:40.160 --> 0:08:42.920
<v Speaker 1>going to tolerate that, and those investigations are gonna pursued,

0:08:43.280 --> 0:08:45.280
<v Speaker 1>and then we're gonna have investigations in the House, the

0:08:45.320 --> 0:08:48.680
<v Speaker 1>Senate History Committee on the question of abuse of power.

0:08:49.200 --> 0:08:52.400
<v Speaker 1>And I went to Gown. I think Republicans will uh

0:08:52.559 --> 0:08:55.800
<v Speaker 1>come around on this, you know, remembering that even with

0:08:55.920 --> 0:08:59.280
<v Speaker 1>the next debacle of the Republican Party came back very

0:08:59.280 --> 0:09:03.680
<v Speaker 1>strong and Kenadie with election of Ronald Reagan. But participating

0:09:03.679 --> 0:09:06.640
<v Speaker 1>and cover up it's certainly not the interest of of

0:09:06.760 --> 0:09:11.640
<v Speaker 1>anybody in the Republican Party or anyone in Congress. So

0:09:11.720 --> 0:09:13.640
<v Speaker 1>hopefully we're gonna be able to move forward on this.

0:09:14.400 --> 0:09:17.120
<v Speaker 1>But it's a very serious situation because unlike water Gate,

0:09:17.200 --> 0:09:21.000
<v Speaker 1>which was really a third rate burglary um, you know,

0:09:21.160 --> 0:09:26.360
<v Speaker 1>but it's purely domestic, this involved the Russian UH aspying

0:09:26.440 --> 0:09:29.559
<v Speaker 1>inside the United States and attempt to be stablized our government.

0:09:29.679 --> 0:09:36.240
<v Speaker 1>That's a very dangerous situation. Now, do we expect Bradley

0:09:36.360 --> 0:09:42.920
<v Speaker 1>to see James Comey anytime soon testifying in in Congress

0:09:42.920 --> 0:09:45.920
<v Speaker 1>in the open? I believe, I know, I know that

0:09:45.960 --> 0:09:47.600
<v Speaker 1>there's already been a request I think it was just

0:09:47.760 --> 0:09:51.320
<v Speaker 1>made earlier this uh this morning or this afternoon for

0:09:51.400 --> 0:09:54.080
<v Speaker 1>him to come back, and also Senate Intelligence or Senate

0:09:54.160 --> 0:09:57.560
<v Speaker 1>Judiciary that want him to testify an open and closed

0:09:57.640 --> 0:10:01.240
<v Speaker 1>classified session. I think that is very much warranted at

0:10:01.280 --> 0:10:03.880
<v Speaker 1>this point. I think, given all that's already leaked out,

0:10:03.920 --> 0:10:08.120
<v Speaker 1>and given these various stories now about the memoranda that

0:10:08.200 --> 0:10:12.599
<v Speaker 1>he was drafting documenting the conversations with the President that

0:10:12.640 --> 0:10:15.720
<v Speaker 1>were raising concerns for him that we need to have

0:10:15.800 --> 0:10:19.840
<v Speaker 1>some clarity on the situation. And it's it's it's more

0:10:19.920 --> 0:10:21.840
<v Speaker 1>or less about time that he comes back we get

0:10:22.040 --> 0:10:24.720
<v Speaker 1>some certainty as to what exactly happened, why he didn't

0:10:24.800 --> 0:10:29.360
<v Speaker 1>raise this earlier, why he had what he one of

0:10:29.400 --> 0:10:32.000
<v Speaker 1>the conversations he had with the president, and what else

0:10:32.040 --> 0:10:36.720
<v Speaker 1>he was concerned about, if anything. And Richard, let's talk

0:10:36.760 --> 0:10:41.319
<v Speaker 1>about an FBI memo and the weight that an FBI

0:10:41.440 --> 0:10:48.959
<v Speaker 1>memo carries that what about the FBI memo that an

0:10:49.000 --> 0:10:53.040
<v Speaker 1>FBI memo in criminal proceedings even carries a great deal

0:10:53.080 --> 0:10:57.800
<v Speaker 1>of weight, and a memo made almost contemporaneously with a

0:10:57.840 --> 0:11:02.319
<v Speaker 1>discussion by an FBI up person or questioning, Well, the

0:11:02.440 --> 0:11:06.240
<v Speaker 1>question is what happened in the conversation And at the

0:11:06.360 --> 0:11:09.280
<v Speaker 1>end of the day, the question is gonna say, was

0:11:09.360 --> 0:11:14.280
<v Speaker 1>the President UH seeking to intimidate the FBI and trying

0:11:14.320 --> 0:11:20.120
<v Speaker 1>to threaten UH, were actually threatening Director Comey with being

0:11:20.160 --> 0:11:23.360
<v Speaker 1>fired if he did not UH put ustop to the

0:11:23.400 --> 0:11:27.800
<v Speaker 1>point investigation and tamper down the Russia investigation. UH. The

0:11:27.880 --> 0:11:30.840
<v Speaker 1>evidence points in the direction of that, indeed being the case,

0:11:31.880 --> 0:11:35.640
<v Speaker 1>the question isn't the mamo the mamos the evidence. The

0:11:35.720 --> 0:11:41.160
<v Speaker 1>question is did the President seek to impede the FBI

0:11:41.240 --> 0:11:44.880
<v Speaker 1>investigation by threatening to fire the FBI director if he

0:11:44.920 --> 0:11:47.800
<v Speaker 1>did not put us out to the point investigation. I

0:11:47.800 --> 0:11:50.560
<v Speaker 1>want to thank both of you for being on Bloomberg Law.

0:11:50.640 --> 0:11:54.160
<v Speaker 1>That's Richard Painter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School,

0:11:54.880 --> 0:11:58.560
<v Speaker 1>and Bradley Moss, partner at Mark's Aid. Coming up on

0:11:58.600 --> 0:12:00.800
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law. We're going to go back in history to

0:12:00.800 --> 0:12:04.280
<v Speaker 1>look at the parallels between Komi's memo and the smoking

0:12:04.320 --> 0:12:08.720
<v Speaker 1>gun that took present Richard Nixon down. I am June Grosso.

0:12:09.000 --> 0:12:11.679
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio. This is

0:12:11.720 --> 0:12:12.320
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg