1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,440 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,680
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Attorney General William

6
00:00:22,720 --> 00:00:26,080
Speaker 1: Barr is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's been

7
00:00:26,079 --> 00:00:30,080
Speaker 1: defending his handling up Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings following

8
00:00:30,120 --> 00:00:33,600
Speaker 1: the release of a letter dated March from Mueller to

9
00:00:33,680 --> 00:00:37,640
Speaker 1: Bar objecting to the Attorney General's misrepresentation of his report.

10
00:00:38,120 --> 00:00:40,520
Speaker 1: Bar testified that the reason he had to take three

11
00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:43,959
Speaker 1: weeks to release a redacted report was because Mueller sent

12
00:00:44,080 --> 00:00:48,919
Speaker 1: him a report without that grand jury material redacted. Unfortunately,

13
00:00:49,280 --> 00:00:52,839
Speaker 1: it did not come in that form, and it UH

14
00:00:53,080 --> 00:00:55,440
Speaker 1: quickly became a parent that it would take about three

15
00:00:55,560 --> 00:00:59,560
Speaker 1: or four weeks UH to identify that material and other

16
00:00:59,600 --> 00:01:04,679
Speaker 1: material let have to be redacted. Bar um that contradicts

17
00:01:04,680 --> 00:01:08,160
Speaker 1: the statement Mueller made in his letter to Bar. Joining

18
00:01:08,200 --> 00:01:11,639
Speaker 1: me is Andrew Kent, professor at Fordham Law School. Andrew,

19
00:01:11,720 --> 00:01:14,520
Speaker 1: let's start with that question of whether or not Mueller

20
00:01:15,040 --> 00:01:17,760
Speaker 1: had redacted the grand jury material. Is it going to

21
00:01:17,800 --> 00:01:21,200
Speaker 1: come down to calling Mueller to testify in order to

22
00:01:21,400 --> 00:01:26,400
Speaker 1: judge his credibility versus that of Bars? I think it

23
00:01:26,440 --> 00:01:28,800
Speaker 1: seems inevitable that Muller will be called to testify. There

24
00:01:28,800 --> 00:01:31,120
Speaker 1: are so many questions, and certainly among them are the

25
00:01:31,160 --> 00:01:33,360
Speaker 1: ones that you point to now, Ju, and so I

26
00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:35,760
Speaker 1: do expect that we will hear from him. How, in

27
00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:39,640
Speaker 1: your opinion, did bar do in rebutting the criticism that

28
00:01:39,760 --> 00:01:45,000
Speaker 1: his summary and press conference misrepresented Mueller's report? You know,

29
00:01:45,120 --> 00:01:47,400
Speaker 1: my judgment, not so well. I think he had a

30
00:01:47,400 --> 00:01:52,280
Speaker 1: lot of serious questions to respond to, and his answers,

31
00:01:52,320 --> 00:01:56,800
Speaker 1: for the most part, we're come narrow, loyally parsing um,

32
00:01:56,920 --> 00:01:59,600
Speaker 1: you're kind of really fine grained, sort of hair splitting

33
00:01:59,680 --> 00:02:03,960
Speaker 1: that um, to my mind, really didn't answer the many

34
00:02:04,080 --> 00:02:06,200
Speaker 1: legitimate questions that have been raised about how he had

35
00:02:06,200 --> 00:02:10,120
Speaker 1: handled both his transmission of the report and his public

36
00:02:10,160 --> 00:02:13,440
Speaker 1: statements about the report. What struck me was his answer

37
00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:17,639
Speaker 1: to a question about why he concluded there was no obstruction.

38
00:02:17,960 --> 00:02:21,360
Speaker 1: He said there was no underlying crime, but Muller in

39
00:02:21,520 --> 00:02:25,280
Speaker 1: his report disagreed with that, and legal experts disagree with

40
00:02:25,320 --> 00:02:29,880
Speaker 1: that as well. What's your take. I agree with everyone

41
00:02:29,880 --> 00:02:33,200
Speaker 1: except Borrow on this. There are obstruction cases on the

42
00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:37,600
Speaker 1: books where courts have upheld uh, somebody who had motives

43
00:02:37,600 --> 00:02:41,600
Speaker 1: of embarrassment or shielding a friend from from justice, or

44
00:02:41,760 --> 00:02:45,320
Speaker 1: or other kinds of other kinds of motives for obstructing

45
00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:50,160
Speaker 1: justice other than um, you know, shielding themselves from criminal activity.

46
00:02:50,240 --> 00:02:54,079
Speaker 1: So Bar does seem to have an unduly narrow reading

47
00:02:54,080 --> 00:02:56,840
Speaker 1: of the obstruction statutes. Let's talk about some of the

48
00:02:57,040 --> 00:03:02,120
Speaker 1: specifics of bars representation of the Mueller Report that Congressman

49
00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:05,600
Speaker 1: called him on. They focused a little on Don McGann

50
00:03:05,800 --> 00:03:10,280
Speaker 1: because because of his presence, in fact, he in the

51
00:03:10,320 --> 00:03:13,120
Speaker 1: second part of the report, he is one of the

52
00:03:13,120 --> 00:03:17,720
Speaker 1: the leading players, you might say. And Bar argued today

53
00:03:17,760 --> 00:03:21,200
Speaker 1: that the President never used the specific word fire and

54
00:03:21,320 --> 00:03:25,280
Speaker 1: so he wasn't trying to fire him because he wanted

55
00:03:25,280 --> 00:03:28,960
Speaker 1: to cover up the what was happening with the Muller.

56
00:03:29,440 --> 00:03:32,160
Speaker 1: What was your take on that. I found that to

57
00:03:32,200 --> 00:03:36,240
Speaker 1: be one of the more confounding aspects of the testimony today. Um,

58
00:03:36,320 --> 00:03:39,560
Speaker 1: you know, Senator Feinstein, I thought that a pretty effective job.

59
00:03:39,600 --> 00:03:42,640
Speaker 1: I mean, Bar seemed to be saying that it wasn't

60
00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:47,000
Speaker 1: you know, the word fire wasn't used. And um, Trump

61
00:03:47,040 --> 00:03:49,040
Speaker 1: may have thought, or you know, Bar seemed to think

62
00:03:49,040 --> 00:03:51,600
Speaker 1: that Trump did believe that there were conflicts of interest

63
00:03:52,160 --> 00:03:55,080
Speaker 1: that Mueller had, and therefore Bar seems to be saying

64
00:03:55,080 --> 00:03:58,120
Speaker 1: that Trump merely wanted, you know, a special counsel to

65
00:03:58,120 --> 00:04:01,520
Speaker 1: be removed, not but not fired, whatever that distinction is.

66
00:04:01,880 --> 00:04:05,040
Speaker 1: But the fact is, as as Mueller found, the claims

67
00:04:05,040 --> 00:04:07,640
Speaker 1: about a suppose it's a conflict of interest are just

68
00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:11,880
Speaker 1: beyond silly, I mean, entirely specious. And Muller reports that

69
00:04:11,920 --> 00:04:15,000
Speaker 1: White House officials told Trump that there was no obstruction

70
00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:18,000
Speaker 1: of justice at all. Excuse me, no, no conflict of

71
00:04:18,040 --> 00:04:20,360
Speaker 1: interest by Mueller at all. And therefore it's quite hard

72
00:04:20,400 --> 00:04:24,719
Speaker 1: to understand why why Borrow would assume presidential good faith

73
00:04:25,680 --> 00:04:28,400
Speaker 1: in this instance. I really did not understand his answers

74
00:04:28,440 --> 00:04:33,120
Speaker 1: and found them pretty unconvincing. Does this bring out the

75
00:04:33,160 --> 00:04:35,479
Speaker 1: point that the House is trying to make the House

76
00:04:35,520 --> 00:04:40,320
Speaker 1: wants to have some lawyers, some committee lawyers, question Bar

77
00:04:40,680 --> 00:04:45,160
Speaker 1: tomorrow in a thirty minute session, and is it because

78
00:04:45,240 --> 00:04:49,040
Speaker 1: what happens here? You have a five minute session by

79
00:04:49,320 --> 00:04:52,560
Speaker 1: you know, mostly non lawyers in a cross examination kind

80
00:04:52,560 --> 00:04:55,479
Speaker 1: of setting, but they never really get to their point

81
00:04:55,560 --> 00:04:59,480
Speaker 1: in those five minutes, they can't follow up enough. Yeah,

82
00:04:59,520 --> 00:05:02,000
Speaker 1: I think that's a exactly why the House wants to

83
00:05:02,160 --> 00:05:06,600
Speaker 1: change the format somewhat. It is very difficult for individual members, who,

84
00:05:06,800 --> 00:05:09,440
Speaker 1: as you say, only have five minutes each broken up

85
00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:12,479
Speaker 1: by the other party, having their chance to really develop

86
00:05:12,520 --> 00:05:15,720
Speaker 1: a line of question. Really, um, really press somebody. And

87
00:05:15,760 --> 00:05:18,919
Speaker 1: I think um Barr is aware that the questioning of

88
00:05:19,000 --> 00:05:21,200
Speaker 1: him would be a lot more effective if it was

89
00:05:21,240 --> 00:05:23,360
Speaker 1: done in the way that the House Judiciary Committee wants

90
00:05:23,360 --> 00:05:26,640
Speaker 1: to So he um, you know, as as as you indicate,

91
00:05:26,640 --> 00:05:29,680
Speaker 1: you know he's objecting to that, and as my understanding

92
00:05:29,760 --> 00:05:31,240
Speaker 1: is so far as said, he's not going to show

93
00:05:31,320 --> 00:05:34,320
Speaker 1: up if he's going to be counseled questioned by by

94
00:05:34,360 --> 00:05:38,080
Speaker 1: a lawyer instead of by the members themselves. It would

95
00:05:38,080 --> 00:05:41,800
Speaker 1: be refreshing to me if a witness at some point

96
00:05:41,839 --> 00:05:44,320
Speaker 1: I said I was wrong, I shouldn't have used that word.

97
00:05:44,839 --> 00:05:47,920
Speaker 1: Yet Bar went through a long explanation of why he

98
00:05:48,040 --> 00:05:52,120
Speaker 1: used the words spying and saying it doesn't have you know,

99
00:05:52,240 --> 00:05:55,560
Speaker 1: derogatory meanings to most people, which I think is on

100
00:05:55,600 --> 00:05:58,920
Speaker 1: its face wrong. I agree with you. I thought he

101
00:05:58,920 --> 00:06:01,520
Speaker 1: could have just said I was speaking quickly. You know,

102
00:06:01,640 --> 00:06:05,000
Speaker 1: in retrospect, I would have used a different language. I mean, because,

103
00:06:05,200 --> 00:06:07,400
Speaker 1: after all, in context, what he was talking about was

104
00:06:07,839 --> 00:06:12,839
Speaker 1: court authorized, you know, legally authorized surveillance after the government

105
00:06:12,839 --> 00:06:15,560
Speaker 1: had met a very substantial burden of of showing a

106
00:06:15,680 --> 00:06:18,960
Speaker 1: judge that there was reason to believe that Carter Page

107
00:06:19,720 --> 00:06:22,240
Speaker 1: uh might be an agent of a foreign power. And

108
00:06:22,240 --> 00:06:25,160
Speaker 1: to call that with such a colloquial and and sort

109
00:06:25,160 --> 00:06:29,520
Speaker 1: of negative terms spying, you know, is I think really inappropriate.

110
00:06:29,839 --> 00:06:31,520
Speaker 1: I mean, for one thing, the Attorney General is one

111
00:06:31,520 --> 00:06:32,840
Speaker 1: of the you know, one of the officials in our

112
00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:37,120
Speaker 1: government who is himself is authorized to approve these warrants

113
00:06:37,200 --> 00:06:40,680
Speaker 1: for surveillance and appropriate circumstances. And you know, I don't

114
00:06:40,680 --> 00:06:43,839
Speaker 1: think that he should be suggesting that it's you know,

115
00:06:43,920 --> 00:06:47,359
Speaker 1: somehow you know, inappropriate or improper by by using a

116
00:06:47,360 --> 00:06:49,720
Speaker 1: word like that. I that that was something where I

117
00:06:49,720 --> 00:06:53,400
Speaker 1: absolutely agree he should have clarified and walked back some

118
00:06:53,480 --> 00:06:55,960
Speaker 1: of the dismissive tone that he used. Only about a

119
00:06:56,000 --> 00:06:59,520
Speaker 1: minute here what so far what stands out to you

120
00:07:00,120 --> 00:07:04,080
Speaker 1: this half day of testimony. You know, one of the

121
00:07:04,120 --> 00:07:06,919
Speaker 1: things that I also was quite surprised that he was

122
00:07:06,920 --> 00:07:09,119
Speaker 1: sticking with was when he had said in his press

123
00:07:09,120 --> 00:07:13,880
Speaker 1: conference previously that the president had fully cooperated with the investigation.

124
00:07:14,320 --> 00:07:16,800
Speaker 1: Some of the senators, like Senator lay He were pressing

125
00:07:16,880 --> 00:07:19,440
Speaker 1: him on that and saying, you know, um, you know,

126
00:07:19,680 --> 00:07:22,960
Speaker 1: the president refused to you know, sit for questioning the president, Uh,

127
00:07:23,080 --> 00:07:26,840
Speaker 1: you know, pressured Manafort not to cooperate with the special counsel.

128
00:07:27,200 --> 00:07:29,440
Speaker 1: You know, how can you know, Mr bar say that

129
00:07:29,480 --> 00:07:32,120
Speaker 1: this is full cooperation And Barr really stuck to his guns,

130
00:07:32,560 --> 00:07:34,960
Speaker 1: which again I think is quite surprising and and sort

131
00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:37,320
Speaker 1: of hard to believe. Um. And you know, the other

132
00:07:37,360 --> 00:07:40,720
Speaker 1: thing was just that you know, we're now, you know,

133
00:07:40,720 --> 00:07:44,200
Speaker 1: how many years removed from the summer of sixteen, you know,

134
00:07:44,200 --> 00:07:47,560
Speaker 1: almost three years and there, Andrew, But there'll be more

135
00:07:47,600 --> 00:07:50,640
Speaker 1: hearings to come for sure, and more testimony. Thank you

136
00:07:50,720 --> 00:07:53,440
Speaker 1: so much. That's Andrew Kent. He's a professor at Fordham

137
00:07:53,520 --> 00:07:59,200
Speaker 1: Law School. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

138
00:07:59,560 --> 00:08:03,600
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

139
00:08:03,720 --> 00:08:07,640
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

140
00:08:08,080 --> 00:08:11,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg m