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. According to a
Speaker 1: New York Times report out overnight, special counsel Robert Mueller
Speaker 1: has at least four dozen questions prepared for a potential
Speaker 1: interview with President Trump. In an interview with W mu
Speaker 1: R Manchester, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is
Speaker 1: now a member of the Trump legal team, call for
Speaker 1: an end to the Mueller investigation altogether. And I think
Speaker 1: the American people are saying, okay, enough, put up a
Speaker 1: shut up. I mean, you got something, Okay, let's go ahead.
Speaker 1: If you don't, let's get it over with. Joining me
Speaker 1: is Bradley Moss, a partner at Mark said, brad, let's
Speaker 1: start with the timing. The Muller team doesn't leak, and
Speaker 1: there are these questions have been in the possession of
Speaker 1: the Trump team since March. Why do you think of
Speaker 1: being leaked now? Well, I think and this is all
Speaker 1: speculation because None of mus truly know who leaked it
Speaker 1: or their ultimate underlying motives, but the consensus speculation is
Speaker 1: that this is someone from within Trump's orbit, maybe not
Speaker 1: necessarily on his legal team, of people who have access
Speaker 1: to him and do his team's documents and understanding, who
Speaker 1: are trying to dissuade the President from sitting down with Mueller.
Speaker 1: They have seen the detailed nature of these questions, they
Speaker 1: know how Muller would do follow up questions, and they
Speaker 1: have the same type of concerns that John Dowd apparently
Speaker 1: had about having the President sit down with Mueller and
Speaker 1: address these questions. The President does not have a great
Speaker 1: history providing clear and simple and concise answers in depositions,
Speaker 1: and the idea of putting him in the room with
Speaker 1: Muller and his team in this circumstances just not what
Speaker 1: any credible lawyer would advise. I like that term consensus speculation.
Speaker 1: I may borrow that from you. So these are just
Speaker 1: basedly topics. Will the questions be more detailed and include
Speaker 1: references to documents or the testimony of others? Give us
Speaker 1: an example of what a question might sound like. Sure,
Speaker 1: so these are we would started. We can kind of describe,
Speaker 1: as you know, the starting off point questions. You use
Speaker 1: this broader, more general type of question to start the
Speaker 1: line of inquiry, and then, depending on how the individual
Speaker 1: as such as the President in this circumstance, answers it,
Speaker 1: you follow up and you follow the facts, and you
Speaker 1: follow the explanations where they lead you. You can, of
Speaker 1: course site back to existing documentation you may already have
Speaker 1: in this type of situation. It's almost borders on axiomatic
Speaker 1: that they would have provided the president's lawyers with some
Speaker 1: kind of understanding of which documents would be an issue
Speaker 1: that not. I don't see Muller's finding any real basis
Speaker 1: here to try to stand back the president. I don't
Speaker 1: get helps him in any way. So if there's gonna
Speaker 1: be emails, if there's gonna be memoranda, I think the
Speaker 1: president will already know about it in advance. But you
Speaker 1: use that initial frame setting question like the ones we
Speaker 1: saw in the New York Times report to start your
Speaker 1: lines of inquiry. You follow them from there. The questions
Speaker 1: cover a broad range of subjects, and obstruction of justice
Speaker 1: is prominent among them. What is Muller trying to find
Speaker 1: out here? Well? At least two things. One is his
Speaker 1: original underlying premise and mandate, which is was there any
Speaker 1: criminal coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives,
Speaker 1: whether officially part of the Russian government or people working
Speaker 1: on their own. Um. That was the original premise, and
Speaker 1: you stiff still are numerous questions in there in terms
Speaker 1: of the Trump Tower meeting in summer of SI, in
Speaker 1: terms of that very eye opening question about what the
Speaker 1: president knew about contacts between his campaign, particularly Paul Manafort,
Speaker 1: and Russian nationals in terms of providing assistance to the campaign.
Speaker 1: So that was the obvious first step. But the other parts,
Speaker 1: and you see it throughout these questions are how the
Speaker 1: President responded both internally and in response to media reports
Speaker 1: about the about the investigation, when he's firing Comey, when
Speaker 1: he's pressuring the Attorney General Jeff Sessions to unrecus himself,
Speaker 1: when he's trying to stop Jeff Sessions from resigning, when
Speaker 1: he's pushing for possible pressure to fire the Special Council.
Speaker 1: What Mr Mueller is trying to determine as if the
Speaker 1: President had corrupt intent in how he was trying to
Speaker 1: push back on the investigation, and if he did, that
Speaker 1: would be a basis for Mr Mueller to recommend congressional
Speaker 1: impeachment inquiry into the issue of obstruction of justice. Yeah,
Speaker 1: favorite question of mine was it the Special Council asking
Speaker 1: about the Special Counsel? What consideration and discussions did you
Speaker 1: have regarding terminating the Special Council in June of what?
Speaker 1: What surprised you? Any surprises here for you? Well, from
Speaker 1: the collision angle, I mean, I think what race everybody's
Speaker 1: eyebrows was this question about assistant people from the campaign,
Speaker 1: particularly Paul Manafort, seeking assistance from the Russians. That really
Speaker 1: hasn't been publicly discussed or there's been no come out
Speaker 1: in any of the indictments or any of the official
Speaker 1: disclosures by the Special Council. So if he's asking that
Speaker 1: kind of question to the President, everybody's againting consensus speculation
Speaker 1: is that Mr Mueller has something how subsittive, how concrete,
Speaker 1: we don't know, but he has something to indicate that
Speaker 1: there's more to the story about how much the campaign
Speaker 1: was willing to try to work with Russian nationals to
Speaker 1: get assistance in the campaign, whether it's hacking of d
Speaker 1: NC emails or releases of stuff of emails and documents
Speaker 1: through wiki leaks. We don't know yet. That is raised
Speaker 1: so many eyebrows is what does Mueller have there? Is
Speaker 1: there more to the story and does that tie in
Speaker 1: with the enormous pressure that Mueller's prosecutors seem to be
Speaker 1: putting on Manaford in the in the cases against him. Yes? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And the odds are you know watching what Mueller's team
Speaker 1: of Mulish tam sorry, what Manaforts team has been doing recently.
Speaker 1: They're throwing everything at the wall that they can to
Speaker 1: try to weaken Mueller's ace against him. Odds are you know?
Speaker 1: Even the judges said this. Odds are Manaforms going to
Speaker 1: jail for at least some period of time if he
Speaker 1: takes this the trial. What he's trying to do with
Speaker 1: his emotions he dismissed with his emotions to suppress with
Speaker 1: the motion he just filed last night, in terms of
Speaker 1: trying to get an investigation into the league. If he's
Speaker 1: trying to pick and not and weaken the case against
Speaker 1: him in any way he can to leverage it for
Speaker 1: the best deal, best plea deal he can ultimately get
Speaker 1: before he flips. You speculated in consensus speculation that this
Speaker 1: was to send a message to show the president, you
Speaker 1: know how how these questions are tough. And but Trump
Speaker 1: tweeted this morning, no questions on collusion. That's the word
Speaker 1: he loves to use. What does that reveal about the
Speaker 1: President's knowledge of what he's facing, Uh, it's it's always
Speaker 1: hard to know how much of that, how much of
Speaker 1: what he tweets out and how he describes it is
Speaker 1: more of a political act and political theater as opposed
Speaker 1: to reflecting what he truly understands. I think he has
Speaker 1: done a fantastic job of quote unquote working the reps.
Speaker 1: He has made it through his media allies and his
Speaker 1: own tweets, through his political operation at the White House
Speaker 1: to beat back against the investigation, claiming it's biased, that
Speaker 1: it's out of control, so that he's done it in
Speaker 1: a way that no matter what comes out of this,
Speaker 1: even if there is some type of evidence, some type
Speaker 1: of indictment that proves there was some manner of quote
Speaker 1: unquote collusion of criminal coordination, that there's a portion of
Speaker 1: his political base that won't care. They'll think it's all
Speaker 1: it doesn't it's all deep state. Hi. Jenksdale never believe
Speaker 1: any of it. And so long as he continues to
Speaker 1: work the rest like this and make these claims the
Speaker 1: way he does, he's going to be politically able to survive.
Speaker 1: About forty five seconds. Here is your conclusion that after
Speaker 1: this he will not talk to Robert Mueller without a subpoena.
Speaker 1: If he listens to his lawyers, there is no way
Speaker 1: on earth he sits down with Robert Mueller. Absentence pena,
Speaker 1: not a chance, No lawyer would ever agree to it.
Speaker 1: Those are the key words. If he listens to his lawyers,
Speaker 1: which it seems that he has not been doing. That's
Speaker 1: Bradley Moss. Thanks brad, He's a partner marked Z. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: lawyers for the Justice Department and A T and T
Speaker 1: Time Warner made their closing arguments in an antitrust case
Speaker 1: that could forever change the media industry. Speaking with reporters
Speaker 1: at the start of the trial, A T and T
Speaker 1: CEO Randall Stevenson said that the Justice Department's case defied logic.
Speaker 1: It stretches the very reach of antitrust's law beyond the
Speaker 1: breaking point. All of this in an effort to stop
Speaker 1: this combination. Joining me is Bloomberg New his legal reporter
Speaker 1: Eric Larson, who was in the courtroom. Eric, there have
Speaker 1: been lines to get into the courtroom at different times
Speaker 1: during the trial. What was it like for the closing arguments?
Speaker 1: It was a lot like at the start of the trial.
Speaker 1: There were long lines. There are people who are paid
Speaker 1: to wait in line for some of the more high
Speaker 1: powerful people that have They're all day long. Uh. It
Speaker 1: filled up two court rooms. There was an overflow court
Speaker 1: room as well, and it was it was a lot
Speaker 1: of high spirits on both sides. Everyone seemed thoroughly confident.
Speaker 1: The attorneys had to consolidate six weeks of testimony into
Speaker 1: an hour and a half argument, which is nothing for
Speaker 1: a lawyer. What were their final appeals to the judge? Well,
Speaker 1: the government came back to its original argument over and
Speaker 1: over again, which is simply that a T and T
Speaker 1: after this murderer, would have too much bargaining power by
Speaker 1: having control over time, warners, turner broadcasting content, which is
Speaker 1: really powerful popular. Uh. And they say that this type
Speaker 1: of vertical merger, even though it's it's not usually the
Speaker 1: kind that they challenge, it's exactly what they need to
Speaker 1: be looking at in this new sort of media landscape.
Speaker 1: And of course the company said that this is the
Speaker 1: kind of combination that they need to do in order
Speaker 1: to compete with companies night like Netflix. The stakes are
Speaker 1: really high for both sides. Here tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit more about that. Well, A T and T is
Speaker 1: really hinging its future on this, uh this deal, billion
Speaker 1: dollar deal. Um. They say that, you know, the future
Speaker 1: of their company is sort of at stake and being
Speaker 1: able to compete with companies like net flips and Amazon
Speaker 1: that are able to deliver their content directly to consumers.
Speaker 1: And they have a lot more information and knowledge about
Speaker 1: their consumers, which also gives them more power in terms
Speaker 1: of advertising. Uh. So they're really staking a lot on
Speaker 1: this and there uh there said they were pretty surprised
Speaker 1: that they were challenged by the Justice Department on this.
Speaker 1: Uh they thought that it might sail through. Um, but
Speaker 1: that wasn't the case. And what about the Justice Department?
Speaker 1: Might this change the way it does business in the future. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that the Justice Department is definitely sent a
Speaker 1: signal that this type of so called vertical merger or
Speaker 1: two companies on the same chain are are are combining
Speaker 1: rather than two direct competitors combining with that these types
Speaker 1: of deals, which may have sailed through before, are no
Speaker 1: longer going to be so easy to get approval on.
Speaker 1: So um, if other companies like A T, T and
Speaker 1: T and Time Warner are considering similar deals, they're definitely
Speaker 1: going to be watching this very very closely to see,
Speaker 1: uh what the government is going to do in terms
Speaker 1: of they lose this case. And of course that would
Speaker 1: be a huge setback for the government and it took
Speaker 1: a leap with this case, and it would have been
Speaker 1: factfire for sales. So Judge Leon will announce his decision
Speaker 1: at a June twelfth hearing. Any indications that he's been
Speaker 1: leaning one way or another, well, it's always hard to
Speaker 1: predict what a judge is thinking, of course, But throughout
Speaker 1: the trial against six weeks testimony, you know, the people
Speaker 1: who were at the hearing sort of seemed to agreeing
Speaker 1: amongst themselves a lot. That he was questioning the government's
Speaker 1: case over and over again in different ways. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: that doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to rule against them,
Speaker 1: but he did seem to express some confusion about, for example,
Speaker 1: the expert report by the governments that formed the backbone
Speaker 1: of their case. Um. And actually there were some sort
Speaker 1: of gotcha moments that the defense was able to produce
Speaker 1: during the trial to show potential errors in the government's data,
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. Um. So uh. And on the
Speaker 1: day of the closing arguments yesterday, the ceo is of
Speaker 1: both of the companies had flown in to attend and
Speaker 1: and they did seem to be in pretty high spirits
Speaker 1: talking with the lawyers before the proceedings got underway. So
Speaker 1: the judges leaving time, he's making his decision on June twelve,
Speaker 1: he's leaving time before the merger deadline for an appeal.
Speaker 1: So we assume that a T and T time Warner
Speaker 1: would appeal. Is it likely that the government would appeal
Speaker 1: as well if they lose. Um, I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I
Speaker 1: think that they would definitely want to see the case through,
Speaker 1: at least through an appeal, but that that's really just
Speaker 1: a guess. I mean, it's uh, it's something that they'll
Speaker 1: have to wait and see, I suppose, but they haven't said. So.
Speaker 1: This has really drawn a lot of attention. As I
Speaker 1: mentioned at the top, when you look back at what
Speaker 1: you've seen or heard about what stands out in the
Speaker 1: trial as most unusual. Well, I think, like we mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: it was unusual to a lot of people that the
Speaker 1: government challenged this vertical merger to begin with, especially because
Speaker 1: a sort of a similar vertical merger with Comcasts and
Speaker 1: NBCU UM. You know, there was there was a challenge
Speaker 1: to that, but it was resolved through uh an agreement,
Speaker 1: and and one could have expects that have something like
Speaker 1: that might have been reached within this case as well.
Speaker 1: But it is interesting that, for example, the experts from
Speaker 1: both sides were able to come up with completely opposite
Speaker 1: views of the marketplace and the data that they used
Speaker 1: to come to opposite conclusions, even though they're both expert
Speaker 1: economists hired by each side. The battle of the experts, Eric, Eric,
Speaker 1: do you do you believe that that's where it's going
Speaker 1: to you know, the real decision is going to be
Speaker 1: for the judge and to which expert he believes or
Speaker 1: more of the other testimony about a minute here. You know,
Speaker 1: I really do think that he's going to focus in
Speaker 1: on these two experts. Uh. They came up one one
Speaker 1: said that the government's experts said that the deal would
Speaker 1: raise prices for consumers by more than four hundred billion
Speaker 1: dollars a year for pay pay TV subscribers was the
Speaker 1: company's experts said that they would end up saving five
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year or more or subscribers. So and
Speaker 1: it came down to studies and and and data that
Speaker 1: some sides that was cherry picked and the other set
Speaker 1: was not. So it will really be up to this
Speaker 1: judge to decide which which expert. He believes quite a
Speaker 1: difference between the two experts testament. Many thanks, Eric, that's
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News Legal recorder Eric Larson. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg