Speaker 1: President Trump's abrupt firing of FBI dresser James Comey has
Speaker 1: plunged the White House into another political crisis, as Democrats
Speaker 1: call for a special prosecutor to lead the continuing investigation
Speaker 1: into Russian interference in the presidential election. Today, a coalition
Speaker 1: of twenty state attorneys general sent a letter to the
Speaker 1: Justice Department's Deputy A. G. Rod Rosenstein and call for
Speaker 1: the immediate appointment of an independent special counsel to continue
Speaker 1: the investigation. At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing this morning,
Speaker 1: the acting Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, testified that
Speaker 1: to date, there has been no effort to impede any
Speaker 1: FBI investigation since Comby's firing. Simply put sir, you cannot
Speaker 1: stop the men and women of the FBI from doing
Speaker 1: the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding a constitution.
Speaker 1: Joining us are Philip Bobbitt, Professor at Columbia Law School,
Speaker 1: and Sanford Levinson, professor at the University of Texas Law School.
Speaker 1: Phil As you heard, the acting FBI director said, there's
Speaker 1: been no effort to impede any investigation to date. Could
Speaker 1: that change with a new FBI director or with an
Speaker 1: order from the A G. Of course that could change
Speaker 1: and and uh, and there are many people who would
Speaker 1: say that the firing of Jim Comey was an effort
Speaker 1: to impede such an investigation. Sandy, how reassured for those
Speaker 1: people who are concerned about the firing of Jim Comey,
Speaker 1: how reassured should they be because of the things that
Speaker 1: Andrew McCabe said. He also talked about how he talked
Speaker 1: about how there's no effort to impede the investigation. The
Speaker 1: men and women of the FBI won't be deterred. Um
Speaker 1: is that reassuring? Um? I can jump in here. Um,
Speaker 1: it is from one perspective that I actually do believe
Speaker 1: that the FBI will be diligent in seeking out evidence
Speaker 1: wherever it leads. But the point is, and this is
Speaker 1: what got Comy into some trouble in the first place.
Speaker 1: It's not the FBI decides whether or not to prosecute. Uh.
Speaker 1: That's a subject for the Justice Department. And to put
Speaker 1: it mildly, I think there is a lot of concern
Speaker 1: about whether the Justice Department will be sufficiently independent to
Speaker 1: make the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute. Unprofessional
Speaker 1: rather than low Ley political grounds. Phil There have been
Speaker 1: calls for an independent council, and Senator Richard Blumenthal, among others,
Speaker 1: has said that he'll introduce legislation to re establish an
Speaker 1: independent council if a special prosecutor isn't appointed one that existed,
Speaker 1: similar to the one in the wake of Watergate. Another
Speaker 1: option is an independent commission. How likely are any of
Speaker 1: the to get through? My guess is at the likeliest
Speaker 1: parent would be a Senate Select Committee. The next likely
Speaker 1: would be an independent commission who's whose members were selected
Speaker 1: in some kind of negotiations between the White House and
Speaker 1: the Congress. That the least likely is a new statute
Speaker 1: authorizing and independent council. And the reason for that is
Speaker 1: because we've been there before. Not only are their doubts
Speaker 1: about the constitutionality of such a statute, our experience with
Speaker 1: it has not been a very wholesome one. Do you remember,
Speaker 1: perhaps Judge starrs uh investigations of President Clinton. It's a
Speaker 1: it's an unusual constitutional animal, sort of not really in
Speaker 1: Article to or Article one or Article three. And it
Speaker 1: seems to have a sort of an inertial force to
Speaker 1: take on a scope that I think the Conress would
Speaker 1: be unelikely to reauthorize Sandy. One other thing that Andrew
Speaker 1: McCabe said today was something that seemed to contradict a
Speaker 1: White House characterization. He described the Russia probe as quote
Speaker 1: highly significant. Um, should we take those words to to
Speaker 1: mean a whole lot? Are? Are those words themselves pretty significant? Well?
Speaker 1: I mean it seems to me that any time the
Speaker 1: acting director, who one has to assume is extraordinarily careful
Speaker 1: about words used in the public hearing, uses the term
Speaker 1: highly significant. Um, one has to take that seriously. I mean,
Speaker 1: why why wouldn't you? And Phil Something else that contradicted
Speaker 1: what's been said by the Trump administration. Andrew McCabe said
Speaker 1: that working for Jim Comey was the greatest experience of
Speaker 1: his life and the FBI, everyone in the FBI really,
Speaker 1: you know, respected him, which is contrary with the White House.
Speaker 1: He said, So, what's the impact of that we have
Speaker 1: at thirty seconds? I think it's pretty unlikely that the
Speaker 1: acting direct the FBI will be promoted. Excuse me said
Speaker 1: that again, You're it's unlikely that I think your statement
Speaker 1: just finished his promotion as the permanent director. He's gonna
Speaker 1: he may be the acting only for a few more hours.
Speaker 1: That's a something that enrages the White House. They were
Speaker 1: pretty upset by Jim Comeby's refusal to give public reassurance
Speaker 1: to the President and his concerns. They didn't like the
Speaker 1: idea that called me undercut the White House on the
Speaker 1: Obama wire tapping charges. Uh. I would imagine that Acting
Speaker 1: Director McCay was already planning his upcoming vacation. We're talking
Speaker 1: with Philip Bobbitt, Professor Columbia Law School and Sanford Levinson,
Speaker 1: Professor at the University of Texas Law School about President
Speaker 1: Trump's abrupt firing of FBI Director James Comey and the fallout.
Speaker 1: Phil let me ask you this question. We know today
Speaker 1: that the Deputy Attorney General Rod rosen Stein went to
Speaker 1: meet with the heads of the Senate Intelligence Committee during
Speaker 1: the hearing today. What do you make of that? Well,
Speaker 1: it was a private meeting. I'm sure will will learn
Speaker 1: more when rosen Stein goes up there next week. I
Speaker 1: my guess is that he was asked by the by
Speaker 1: Senator Warner in Senator burr Uh, do one agree he
Speaker 1: would be able to cooperate with the investigations of the
Speaker 1: Senate Committee. I think It's unlikely that they would have
Speaker 1: expected him to say much about his private conversations with
Speaker 1: the president. What they want to know is whether or
Speaker 1: not the FBI can provide investigator assets to the committee.
Speaker 1: The committee is a small staff. They can't possibly do
Speaker 1: this investigation themselves, and that, by the way, is another
Speaker 1: good reason for a select committee. Imagine that rot Stone
Speaker 1: would reassure them. Sandy Levinson, there's been some talk that
Speaker 1: Director former Director Comy might testify in the coming weeks.
Speaker 1: If he did testify before Congress, what would he be
Speaker 1: able to say about this investigation and the circumstances of
Speaker 1: his firing? The honest answers, I really don't know that
Speaker 1: that is say, I don't know how much he would
Speaker 1: believe that, say, his conversations with the President of privileged UM.
Speaker 1: Though inasmuch as the President in fact opened up the
Speaker 1: inquiry by saying that he had been assured three times
Speaker 1: said he wasn't a target, it would seem to me
Speaker 1: that at the very least, uh former Director Comy could
Speaker 1: say whether that's true or not without going to further details. UM.
Speaker 1: But I would certainly expect him to be scrupulous, if
Speaker 1: for no other reason than given this administration and this
Speaker 1: Justice Department, including Jeff Sessions. Let's not forget the Jeff
Speaker 1: Sessions is the attorney in general. Not Rosenstein um that
Speaker 1: I would not put it past the Trump administration to
Speaker 1: try to prosecute Comy if they believed that he was
Speaker 1: leaking confidential information that was protected, and so Senate Majority
Speaker 1: Leader go ahead. The presidents just just within the last
Speaker 1: few minutes at least on CNN has come out and
Speaker 1: said that call Me requested a meeting with him, they
Speaker 1: had dinner together, that Camy asked to be reappointed, and
Speaker 1: that in that context he assured the President that he
Speaker 1: was not under investigation. President further said that they had
Speaker 1: two subs telephone calls, one initiated by Comy, one initiated
Speaker 1: by the President, but at least one of those, the
Speaker 1: President asked him directly whether or not the President was
Speaker 1: subject to investigation, and they Calmy said no. So I
Speaker 1: think it's Sandy suggesting if there was a problem with
Speaker 1: the privilege of these conversations, as I think they probably
Speaker 1: would have been, that's out the window. The President has
Speaker 1: totally waived his privilege now by making these claims about
Speaker 1: about Callmey's statements, and let's go to a Senate Majority leader,
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, who we know wields a lot of power.
Speaker 1: He said that a new investigation by a special prosecutor
Speaker 1: would impede the current work being done by the FBI
Speaker 1: and the Senate Intelligence Committee. Do you find phil any
Speaker 1: uh any uh, let's say veracity in that. Do you
Speaker 1: think there's anything to that? Yeah, I don't think that's
Speaker 1: that's uh, I don't think that's crazy. Uh. You've immediately
Speaker 1: run into special counsel questioning witnesses, and you have a
Speaker 1: set staff or uh, selective staff doing the same thing.
Speaker 1: We had problems like this with the Iran Contra investigation. Now,
Speaker 1: whether or not that's the real basis for his decision
Speaker 1: maybe uh more controversial, but as a reason that I
Speaker 1: think there's something to that, Sandy. Senator Mike Lee made
Speaker 1: an interesting suggestion today. He suggested the possibility of Merrick
Speaker 1: Garland as the new FBI director, and apparently Senator Klobuchar
Speaker 1: uh suggested a Democrat suggested she thought that was a
Speaker 1: good idea. I confess I'm I don't see that as
Speaker 1: very likely, but I'm wondering if you think it might
Speaker 1: have more merit as an idea than than I do.
Speaker 1: Oh sure, you know. I think that once we've entered
Speaker 1: into this era of truly surrealistic politics, why not Merritt Garland. Uh.
Speaker 1: He would certainly be reassuring that everybody, at least prior
Speaker 1: to his nomination agreed that he was a person of
Speaker 1: unimpeachable integrity. He's a former prosecutor, um, so I would
Speaker 1: have great trust in Merrick Garland. I find it very
Speaker 1: hard to believe that Donald Trump would find Garland to
Speaker 1: be an attractive nominee. But who knows, well, Phil would
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland, who is the chief judge of the court
Speaker 1: that is considered just below the Supreme Court, I want
Speaker 1: to do that kind of a job. I don't know
Speaker 1: what he'd want to do it, but I agree with
Speaker 1: Santa help be a a superb choice. And my experience
Speaker 1: with Judge Garland is that he is above all a
Speaker 1: public servant, a very patriotic, a total of person totally
Speaker 1: devoted to the public interest. So if he were asked,
Speaker 1: I think he might welcome up the chief judy ship
Speaker 1: if he felt it would contribute to the welfare of
Speaker 1: the country. Well, that's something that we will see in
Speaker 1: the future to two different uh uh positions, certainly, Um,
Speaker 1: thank you both for being on Bloomberg Law. That's Sanford Levinson,
Speaker 1: he's a professor at the University of Texas Law School.
Speaker 1: And Philip Bobb and he's a professor at Columbia Law School.
Speaker 1: Coming up on Bloomberg Law. A win for environmentalist. The
Speaker 1: Senate unexpectedly keeps an Obama error rule to regulate methane
Speaker 1: emissions from drilling, and it was a very close vote.
Speaker 1: That's coming up on Bloomberg Law. I'm June Grosser with
Speaker 1: Greg Store. This is Bloomberg