WEBVTT - Barr Defends Handling of Mueller Report

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.440 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.680
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Attorney General William

0:00:22.720 --> 0:00:26.080
<v Speaker 1>Barr is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's been

0:00:26.079 --> 0:00:30.080
<v Speaker 1>defending his handling up Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings following

0:00:30.120 --> 0:00:33.600
<v Speaker 1>the release of a letter dated March from Mueller to

0:00:33.680 --> 0:00:37.640
<v Speaker 1>Bar objecting to the Attorney General's misrepresentation of his report.

0:00:38.120 --> 0:00:40.520
<v Speaker 1>Bar testified that the reason he had to take three

0:00:40.560 --> 0:00:43.959
<v Speaker 1>weeks to release a redacted report was because Mueller sent

0:00:44.080 --> 0:00:48.919
<v Speaker 1>him a report without that grand jury material redacted. Unfortunately,

0:00:49.280 --> 0:00:52.839
<v Speaker 1>it did not come in that form, and it UH

0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:55.440
<v Speaker 1>quickly became a parent that it would take about three

0:00:55.560 --> 0:00:59.560
<v Speaker 1>or four weeks UH to identify that material and other

0:00:59.600 --> 0:01:04.679
<v Speaker 1>material let have to be redacted. Bar um that contradicts

0:01:04.680 --> 0:01:08.160
<v Speaker 1>the statement Mueller made in his letter to Bar. Joining

0:01:08.200 --> 0:01:11.639
<v Speaker 1>me is Andrew Kent, professor at Fordham Law School. Andrew,

0:01:11.720 --> 0:01:14.520
<v Speaker 1>let's start with that question of whether or not Mueller

0:01:15.040 --> 0:01:17.760
<v Speaker 1>had redacted the grand jury material. Is it going to

0:01:17.800 --> 0:01:21.200
<v Speaker 1>come down to calling Mueller to testify in order to

0:01:21.400 --> 0:01:26.400
<v Speaker 1>judge his credibility versus that of Bars? I think it

0:01:26.440 --> 0:01:28.800
<v Speaker 1>seems inevitable that Muller will be called to testify. There

0:01:28.800 --> 0:01:31.120
<v Speaker 1>are so many questions, and certainly among them are the

0:01:31.160 --> 0:01:33.360
<v Speaker 1>ones that you point to now, Ju, and so I

0:01:33.360 --> 0:01:35.760
<v Speaker 1>do expect that we will hear from him. How, in

0:01:35.800 --> 0:01:39.640
<v Speaker 1>your opinion, did bar do in rebutting the criticism that

0:01:39.760 --> 0:01:45.000
<v Speaker 1>his summary and press conference misrepresented Mueller's report? You know,

0:01:45.120 --> 0:01:47.400
<v Speaker 1>my judgment, not so well. I think he had a

0:01:47.400 --> 0:01:52.280
<v Speaker 1>lot of serious questions to respond to, and his answers,

0:01:52.320 --> 0:01:56.800
<v Speaker 1>for the most part, we're come narrow, loyally parsing um,

0:01:56.920 --> 0:01:59.600
<v Speaker 1>you're kind of really fine grained, sort of hair splitting

0:01:59.680 --> 0:02:03.960
<v Speaker 1>that um, to my mind, really didn't answer the many

0:02:04.080 --> 0:02:06.200
<v Speaker 1>legitimate questions that have been raised about how he had

0:02:06.200 --> 0:02:10.120
<v Speaker 1>handled both his transmission of the report and his public

0:02:10.160 --> 0:02:13.440
<v Speaker 1>statements about the report. What struck me was his answer

0:02:13.520 --> 0:02:17.639
<v Speaker 1>to a question about why he concluded there was no obstruction.

0:02:17.960 --> 0:02:21.360
<v Speaker 1>He said there was no underlying crime, but Muller in

0:02:21.520 --> 0:02:25.280
<v Speaker 1>his report disagreed with that, and legal experts disagree with

0:02:25.320 --> 0:02:29.880
<v Speaker 1>that as well. What's your take. I agree with everyone

0:02:29.880 --> 0:02:33.200
<v Speaker 1>except Borrow on this. There are obstruction cases on the

0:02:33.240 --> 0:02:37.600
<v Speaker 1>books where courts have upheld uh, somebody who had motives

0:02:37.600 --> 0:02:41.600
<v Speaker 1>of embarrassment or shielding a friend from from justice, or

0:02:41.760 --> 0:02:45.320
<v Speaker 1>or other kinds of other kinds of motives for obstructing

0:02:45.520 --> 0:02:50.160
<v Speaker 1>justice other than um, you know, shielding themselves from criminal activity.

0:02:50.240 --> 0:02:54.079
<v Speaker 1>So Bar does seem to have an unduly narrow reading

0:02:54.080 --> 0:02:56.840
<v Speaker 1>of the obstruction statutes. Let's talk about some of the

0:02:57.040 --> 0:03:02.120
<v Speaker 1>specifics of bars representation of the Mueller Report that Congressman

0:03:02.160 --> 0:03:05.600
<v Speaker 1>called him on. They focused a little on Don McGann

0:03:05.800 --> 0:03:10.280
<v Speaker 1>because because of his presence, in fact, he in the

0:03:10.320 --> 0:03:13.120
<v Speaker 1>second part of the report, he is one of the

0:03:13.120 --> 0:03:17.720
<v Speaker 1>the leading players, you might say. And Bar argued today

0:03:17.760 --> 0:03:21.200
<v Speaker 1>that the President never used the specific word fire and

0:03:21.320 --> 0:03:25.280
<v Speaker 1>so he wasn't trying to fire him because he wanted

0:03:25.280 --> 0:03:28.960
<v Speaker 1>to cover up the what was happening with the Muller.

0:03:29.440 --> 0:03:32.160
<v Speaker 1>What was your take on that. I found that to

0:03:32.200 --> 0:03:36.240
<v Speaker 1>be one of the more confounding aspects of the testimony today. Um,

0:03:36.320 --> 0:03:39.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, Senator Feinstein, I thought that a pretty effective job.

0:03:39.600 --> 0:03:42.640
<v Speaker 1>I mean, Bar seemed to be saying that it wasn't

0:03:42.680 --> 0:03:47.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, the word fire wasn't used. And um, Trump

0:03:47.040 --> 0:03:49.040
<v Speaker 1>may have thought, or you know, Bar seemed to think

0:03:49.040 --> 0:03:51.600
<v Speaker 1>that Trump did believe that there were conflicts of interest

0:03:52.160 --> 0:03:55.080
<v Speaker 1>that Mueller had, and therefore Bar seems to be saying

0:03:55.080 --> 0:03:58.120
<v Speaker 1>that Trump merely wanted, you know, a special counsel to

0:03:58.120 --> 0:04:01.520
<v Speaker 1>be removed, not but not fired, whatever that distinction is.

0:04:01.880 --> 0:04:05.040
<v Speaker 1>But the fact is, as as Mueller found, the claims

0:04:05.040 --> 0:04:07.640
<v Speaker 1>about a suppose it's a conflict of interest are just

0:04:08.000 --> 0:04:11.880
<v Speaker 1>beyond silly, I mean, entirely specious. And Muller reports that

0:04:11.920 --> 0:04:15.000
<v Speaker 1>White House officials told Trump that there was no obstruction

0:04:15.000 --> 0:04:18.000
<v Speaker 1>of justice at all. Excuse me, no, no conflict of

0:04:18.040 --> 0:04:20.360
<v Speaker 1>interest by Mueller at all. And therefore it's quite hard

0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:24.719
<v Speaker 1>to understand why why Borrow would assume presidential good faith

0:04:25.680 --> 0:04:28.400
<v Speaker 1>in this instance. I really did not understand his answers

0:04:28.440 --> 0:04:33.120
<v Speaker 1>and found them pretty unconvincing. Does this bring out the

0:04:33.160 --> 0:04:35.479
<v Speaker 1>point that the House is trying to make the House

0:04:35.520 --> 0:04:40.320
<v Speaker 1>wants to have some lawyers, some committee lawyers, question Bar

0:04:40.680 --> 0:04:45.160
<v Speaker 1>tomorrow in a thirty minute session, and is it because

0:04:45.240 --> 0:04:49.040
<v Speaker 1>what happens here? You have a five minute session by

0:04:49.320 --> 0:04:52.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, mostly non lawyers in a cross examination kind

0:04:52.560 --> 0:04:55.479
<v Speaker 1>of setting, but they never really get to their point

0:04:55.560 --> 0:04:59.480
<v Speaker 1>in those five minutes, they can't follow up enough. Yeah,

0:04:59.520 --> 0:05:02.000
<v Speaker 1>I think that's a exactly why the House wants to

0:05:02.160 --> 0:05:06.600
<v Speaker 1>change the format somewhat. It is very difficult for individual members, who,

0:05:06.800 --> 0:05:09.440
<v Speaker 1>as you say, only have five minutes each broken up

0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:12.479
<v Speaker 1>by the other party, having their chance to really develop

0:05:12.520 --> 0:05:15.720
<v Speaker 1>a line of question. Really, um, really press somebody. And

0:05:15.760 --> 0:05:18.919
<v Speaker 1>I think um Barr is aware that the questioning of

0:05:19.000 --> 0:05:21.200
<v Speaker 1>him would be a lot more effective if it was

0:05:21.240 --> 0:05:23.360
<v Speaker 1>done in the way that the House Judiciary Committee wants

0:05:23.360 --> 0:05:26.640
<v Speaker 1>to So he um, you know, as as as you indicate,

0:05:26.640 --> 0:05:29.680
<v Speaker 1>you know he's objecting to that, and as my understanding

0:05:29.760 --> 0:05:31.240
<v Speaker 1>is so far as said, he's not going to show

0:05:31.320 --> 0:05:34.320
<v Speaker 1>up if he's going to be counseled questioned by by

0:05:34.360 --> 0:05:38.080
<v Speaker 1>a lawyer instead of by the members themselves. It would

0:05:38.080 --> 0:05:41.800
<v Speaker 1>be refreshing to me if a witness at some point

0:05:41.839 --> 0:05:44.320
<v Speaker 1>I said I was wrong, I shouldn't have used that word.

0:05:44.839 --> 0:05:47.920
<v Speaker 1>Yet Bar went through a long explanation of why he

0:05:48.040 --> 0:05:52.120
<v Speaker 1>used the words spying and saying it doesn't have you know,

0:05:52.240 --> 0:05:55.560
<v Speaker 1>derogatory meanings to most people, which I think is on

0:05:55.600 --> 0:05:58.920
<v Speaker 1>its face wrong. I agree with you. I thought he

0:05:58.920 --> 0:06:01.520
<v Speaker 1>could have just said I was speaking quickly. You know,

0:06:01.640 --> 0:06:05.000
<v Speaker 1>in retrospect, I would have used a different language. I mean, because,

0:06:05.200 --> 0:06:07.400
<v Speaker 1>after all, in context, what he was talking about was

0:06:07.839 --> 0:06:12.839
<v Speaker 1>court authorized, you know, legally authorized surveillance after the government

0:06:12.839 --> 0:06:15.560
<v Speaker 1>had met a very substantial burden of of showing a

0:06:15.680 --> 0:06:18.960
<v Speaker 1>judge that there was reason to believe that Carter Page

0:06:19.720 --> 0:06:22.240
<v Speaker 1>uh might be an agent of a foreign power. And

0:06:22.240 --> 0:06:25.160
<v Speaker 1>to call that with such a colloquial and and sort

0:06:25.160 --> 0:06:29.520
<v Speaker 1>of negative terms spying, you know, is I think really inappropriate.

0:06:29.839 --> 0:06:31.520
<v Speaker 1>I mean, for one thing, the Attorney General is one

0:06:31.520 --> 0:06:32.840
<v Speaker 1>of the you know, one of the officials in our

0:06:32.880 --> 0:06:37.120
<v Speaker 1>government who is himself is authorized to approve these warrants

0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:40.680
<v Speaker 1>for surveillance and appropriate circumstances. And you know, I don't

0:06:40.680 --> 0:06:43.839
<v Speaker 1>think that he should be suggesting that it's you know,

0:06:43.920 --> 0:06:47.359
<v Speaker 1>somehow you know, inappropriate or improper by by using a

0:06:47.360 --> 0:06:49.720
<v Speaker 1>word like that. I that that was something where I

0:06:49.720 --> 0:06:53.400
<v Speaker 1>absolutely agree he should have clarified and walked back some

0:06:53.480 --> 0:06:55.960
<v Speaker 1>of the dismissive tone that he used. Only about a

0:06:56.000 --> 0:06:59.520
<v Speaker 1>minute here what so far what stands out to you

0:07:00.120 --> 0:07:04.080
<v Speaker 1>this half day of testimony. You know, one of the

0:07:04.120 --> 0:07:06.919
<v Speaker 1>things that I also was quite surprised that he was

0:07:06.920 --> 0:07:09.119
<v Speaker 1>sticking with was when he had said in his press

0:07:09.120 --> 0:07:13.880
<v Speaker 1>conference previously that the president had fully cooperated with the investigation.

0:07:14.320 --> 0:07:16.800
<v Speaker 1>Some of the senators, like Senator lay He were pressing

0:07:16.880 --> 0:07:19.440
<v Speaker 1>him on that and saying, you know, um, you know,

0:07:19.680 --> 0:07:22.960
<v Speaker 1>the president refused to you know, sit for questioning the president, Uh,

0:07:23.080 --> 0:07:26.840
<v Speaker 1>you know, pressured Manafort not to cooperate with the special counsel.

0:07:27.200 --> 0:07:29.440
<v Speaker 1>You know, how can you know, Mr bar say that

0:07:29.480 --> 0:07:32.120
<v Speaker 1>this is full cooperation And Barr really stuck to his guns,

0:07:32.560 --> 0:07:34.960
<v Speaker 1>which again I think is quite surprising and and sort

0:07:35.000 --> 0:07:37.320
<v Speaker 1>of hard to believe. Um. And you know, the other

0:07:37.360 --> 0:07:40.720
<v Speaker 1>thing was just that you know, we're now, you know,

0:07:40.720 --> 0:07:44.200
<v Speaker 1>how many years removed from the summer of sixteen, you know,

0:07:44.200 --> 0:07:47.560
<v Speaker 1>almost three years and there, Andrew, But there'll be more

0:07:47.600 --> 0:07:50.640
<v Speaker 1>hearings to come for sure, and more testimony. Thank you

0:07:50.720 --> 0:07:53.440
<v Speaker 1>so much. That's Andrew Kent. He's a professor at Fordham

0:07:53.520 --> 0:07:59.200
<v Speaker 1>Law School. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:07:59.560 --> 0:08:03.600
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:08:03.720 --> 0:08:07.640
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:08:08.080 --> 0:08:11.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg m