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. Special counsel Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller's Russia investigation seems to be proceeding in several different directions,
Speaker 1: and we only learn about them when his office announces
Speaker 1: the indictments, so the plea agreements. Something that seemed to
Speaker 1: have been missing was a connection between President Trump and
Speaker 1: the inquiry into whether his presidential campaign colluded with Russia
Speaker 1: during the election. There are indications now that Mueller is
Speaker 1: focusing his attention higher up the ladder to Trump and
Speaker 1: that question. NBC News is reporting that Mueller's team is
Speaker 1: asking witnesses questions about whether Trump knew that democratic emails
Speaker 1: had been stolen before it was publicly known, and whether
Speaker 1: Trump was aware of plans for Wiki Leaks to published
Speaker 1: the emails. Joining me is Jimmy grule I, professor at
Speaker 1: Notre Dame University Law School. Jimmy this seems to be
Speaker 1: echoing that Watergate question. What did the president know and
Speaker 1: when did he know it? Or am I reading too
Speaker 1: much into it? Now? I think you're absolutely right that
Speaker 1: there's a couple of facts here. One, I think it's
Speaker 1: been established that the Russians did attempt to interfere with
Speaker 1: the two thousand and sixteen presidential election. All seventeen of
Speaker 1: the federal intelligence agencies agree on that fact. Even the
Speaker 1: president's own National Security Advisor, General H. R. McMaster his
Speaker 1: stated as much, saying, it's now incontrovertible that there was
Speaker 1: an attempt to interfere with the election. And uh, Then
Speaker 1: with respect to that, the other fact is we know
Speaker 1: that during the campaign, the president then then kendidate Trump
Speaker 1: made several statements alluding to the Russians, at one at
Speaker 1: one time encouraging them to hack into or find Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's emails, and then on several occasions praising wiki leagues
Speaker 1: for systematically disclosing emails of Hillary Clinton. John Podesta, the
Speaker 1: chair of her presidential campaign, that we're benefiting, benefiting the president.
Speaker 1: And so those two facts that now the question is,
Speaker 1: with respect to those two facts, do we have a
Speaker 1: more direct link. Was the president actually aware of the
Speaker 1: the the hacking of the d n C and Podesta's emails,
Speaker 1: and was he or members of his campaign involved in
Speaker 1: assisting the Russians or assisting wiki leagues and systematically disclosing
Speaker 1: those emails. In the indictment of thirteen Russians, laid out
Speaker 1: a very specific and elaborate conspiracy to interfere at the election.
Speaker 1: Those Russians will never be tried. But explain how that
Speaker 1: conspiracy could be the groundwork for charging Trump or others. Well,
Speaker 1: we know, again, we know a couple of things. We
Speaker 1: know that the interference by the Russians had had at
Speaker 1: least two dimensions. One, they were they were using social
Speaker 1: media in a very sophisticated, very organized way to try
Speaker 1: to influence public opinion, uh in favor of president of
Speaker 1: candidate trumping against candidate Clinton. But but there's another important
Speaker 1: dimension to the Russian interference, and that's the hacking. We
Speaker 1: know that the Russians were involved in Russian intelligence agencies
Speaker 1: were involved in hacking the d n C emails and
Speaker 1: then hacking John Podesta's emails and so uh so so
Speaker 1: as a results of that, Now, if there was collusion
Speaker 1: or conspiracy or cooperation or coordination between the Russians and
Speaker 1: Wiki Leak and members of the Trump campaign that could
Speaker 1: give rise to UH crimes, federal crimes, including a violation
Speaker 1: of the Computer Fraud Act, which makes it an offense
Speaker 1: to access without a thor UH an individual's computer and
Speaker 1: then obtain information from those computer files and use those
Speaker 1: in an effort to perpetrate fraud. But as far as
Speaker 1: a conspiracy count, what would Mueller have to show what
Speaker 1: kind of act on the part of the president or
Speaker 1: those around him? And in reality, there doesn't have to
Speaker 1: be an act on on the part of the president.
Speaker 1: There would need to be an agreement. So the the prosecutor,
Speaker 1: Mueller would have to prove that there was an agreement
Speaker 1: between perhaps members of the Russian Intelligence Agency Russian Operatives UH,
Speaker 1: members of Wiki Leaks, Julian Assange, and then members of
Speaker 1: the of the Trump campaign. So was there a meeting
Speaker 1: of the minds between any of those those parties to
Speaker 1: hack into the d n C and then to use
Speaker 1: those emails to distribute those emails in a way that
Speaker 1: would damage Hillary Clinton and benefit Donald Trump. Let's learned
Speaker 1: to Trump's strain to say the least, relationship with his
Speaker 1: Attorney General Jeff Sessions. According to the Washington Post. Mueller's
Speaker 1: team has been questioning witnesses about Trump's private comments and
Speaker 1: his state of mind last summer about the time he
Speaker 1: belittled he was belittling Sessions in a series of tweets
Speaker 1: talking about his beleaguered attorney general and the Post. The
Speaker 1: Post reports that that people familiar with the matters that
Speaker 1: a key area for the investigators is whether those efforts
Speaker 1: were part of a pattern of up tempted obstruction of justice.
Speaker 1: Explain more about what they may be looking for here. Well, again,
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice involves an attempt to undermine a pending
Speaker 1: judicial proceeding, and in this particular case, a grand jury proceeding.
Speaker 1: The grand jury proceeding this ongoing with respect to the
Speaker 1: Russia investigation. And so the the issue here is, first,
Speaker 1: was an attempt to interfere with that grand jury investigation?
Speaker 1: And further, if there was, it was the defender was
Speaker 1: the president in this case acting with the corrupt intent?
Speaker 1: And so the president certainly has the power of the
Speaker 1: authority to fire any of the members of his cabinet,
Speaker 1: but if he does so with the corrupt intent, meaning
Speaker 1: an improper purpose, that could potentially give rise to obstruction
Speaker 1: of Justice. So the question here is was the president
Speaker 1: attempting to pressure Attorney General Sessions to to leave his
Speaker 1: post in an effort to hamper or undermine the ongoing
Speaker 1: grandjury investigation involving Russian interference with the two thousand and
Speaker 1: sixteen election. It gets very complicated when you start to
Speaker 1: talk about what actually what kind of proof is actually needed.
Speaker 1: But you always help us there. Thank you, Jimmy. That's
Speaker 1: Jimmy Garula. He's a professor Notre Dame University Law School. Also,
Speaker 1: of course, more than thirty aids to President Trump have
Speaker 1: been stripped of access to top secret intelligence. According to
Speaker 1: two people familiar with move, the college troops scandal led
Speaker 1: to a different kind of March madness in a New
Speaker 1: York courtroom yesterday. Federal prosecutors are looking into bribery at
Speaker 1: the highest levels of college basketball, and they complained to
Speaker 1: a federal judge about leaks of court documents detailing payments
Speaker 1: to players, saying the premature disclosure of evidence could endanger
Speaker 1: their investigation. Defense attorneys denied that they were the source
Speaker 1: of the leaks. Judge Lewis Kaplan said this stops now
Speaker 1: wherever it came from. Joining me is Benjamin Levine, senior
Speaker 1: counsel at Gordon and Reese. Benjamin tell us about the
Speaker 1: initial indictment of the ten assistant coaches, the show company
Speaker 1: executives and agents and where that stands, Hygen, Well, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for having me today. UM, this is
Speaker 1: an interesting case and it's been sort of perplexing in
Speaker 1: my eyes, and I think to a lot of observers
Speaker 1: since the indictment came down in September that the federal
Speaker 1: government got involved with college basketball. Pretty much what happened
Speaker 1: was the FBI came out and they've been investigating college
Speaker 1: basketball and amateurism and the n A rules for the
Speaker 1: last couple of years and sort of an elaborate UM
Speaker 1: investigation if you look into three thousand hours of wire tapping,
Speaker 1: wire taps, undercover agents that were involved, and pretty much
Speaker 1: what they were doing is saying that federal law was
Speaker 1: not violated. However, the n A rules, which um is
Speaker 1: the regulatory arm of college athletics, those rules were being violated,
Speaker 1: and the FBI had the FBI and the federal government
Speaker 1: had jurisdiction to get involved because schools, of course received
Speaker 1: a significant federal funding. So that's sort of how the
Speaker 1: FBI got involved here. So now the prosecutors were complaining
Speaker 1: about a Yahoo Sports report from last week that revealed
Speaker 1: details of the federal investigation. I believe there is also
Speaker 1: an ESPN report. What did those reports disclosed that wasn't
Speaker 1: known before? Sure, Well, there's two different reports that are
Speaker 1: sort of the subject of the leaks and the judge
Speaker 1: being pretty aggravated with all sides yesterday at that hearing.
Speaker 1: The first was a report from Yahoo which laid out
Speaker 1: documents that were most likely exchanged in discovery, but laid
Speaker 1: out pretty intricate records from Andy Miller a s M Sports,
Speaker 1: which is a uh he and he's a pretty big
Speaker 1: basketball agent and his office was implicated because one of
Speaker 1: his associates, Christian Dawkins, was indicted as part of the
Speaker 1: initial indictments. In September, um the daily indictments came down,
Speaker 1: it was reported that a s M the FBI, the
Speaker 1: FEDS came in and they gathered a ton of evidence.
Speaker 1: They took their computers, their servers. In part on their
Speaker 1: servers were excelt sheets which allegedly laid out payments that
Speaker 1: were paid from a s M Sports, specifically Christian Dawkins.
Speaker 1: And a few other associates at a s M to
Speaker 1: high school athletes and their families too, theoretically get them
Speaker 1: to most likely eventually signed with them when they turned
Speaker 1: pro um and the league that was in Yahoo Sports.
Speaker 1: It was pretty intricate in detail because they were actually
Speaker 1: at the actual documents and the spreadsheets which were disclosed
Speaker 1: in UH the investigation. The ESPN report is actually even
Speaker 1: murkier because Sean Miller, who is the coach of UH
Speaker 1: the Arizona one of the best teams in the country,
Speaker 1: is reportedly on What's Caught on a wire tap with
Speaker 1: Christian Dawkins discussing how they could pay DeAndre Aton, who's
Speaker 1: most likely going to be the number one pick UM
Speaker 1: this year when he declares to the NBA Draft, how
Speaker 1: they were able to pay his family and him a
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars to at ten Arizona. So the judge,
Speaker 1: obviously these are two, you know, UH, huge parts of
Speaker 1: the case, and you know, these are the smoking guns
Speaker 1: you always hear about, and somehow they've made their way
Speaker 1: into the press and for the public to consume. And
Speaker 1: obviously there's concerns from the judge because you do want
Speaker 1: to have a fair trial. When this eventually goes to trial,
Speaker 1: you don't want to have the jury pool polluted by
Speaker 1: evidence that gets out prior to being introduced to the jury.
Speaker 1: It seems like the prosecutors were the ones that were
Speaker 1: complaining more. Does it hurt the prosecution more or the defense?
Speaker 1: You know what, It's always uh, it's always funny when
Speaker 1: it comes to leaks because this information always gets out.
Speaker 1: And you know, I always tell people when they're trying
Speaker 1: to figure out, what's the point of this getting out?
Speaker 1: Yet the point to who the source of the the leak
Speaker 1: was and tryside what they have to gain. And I
Speaker 1: can see it from both ends. I mean, the prosecutors
Speaker 1: saying we didn't do it. They're pointing fingers at the defense.
Speaker 1: The defense is saying we didn't do it. We're pointing
Speaker 1: fingers at the prosecution. And both sides have an interest
Speaker 1: of can have their own interests to gain this stuff out.
Speaker 1: On the point of the prosecutors, they could be releasing
Speaker 1: this information specifically as it pertains to Sean Miller, to
Speaker 1: sort to scare other people to come forward, saying, look,
Speaker 1: we have three thousand hours of wire tap conversations and
Speaker 1: you could be next so if you have any information,
Speaker 1: come to us now and get the best deal, and
Speaker 1: you know it will look more favorable if you come
Speaker 1: in disclose what you know now. On the defense side,
Speaker 1: they could be saying, look, this is a which hunt
Speaker 1: towards just a few the ten people that are indicted.
Speaker 1: This actually goes a lot further than um just the
Speaker 1: defendants that are actually named. Sean Miller, for instance, he's
Speaker 1: not named in any indictment and hasn't been mentioned once
Speaker 1: as being a part of this case. So Ben, one
Speaker 1: of the defense attorneys, said he'd already raised concerns with
Speaker 1: prosecutors that too many documents had been designated as confidential,
Speaker 1: and Judge Kaplan told both sides that they should expect
Speaker 1: a revised order on procedures for confidential documents in order
Speaker 1: not to jeopardize the fair trial. What kind of procedures
Speaker 1: for confidential documents? Can he can he really close the
Speaker 1: lead here? Can he can the judge stop the leaks
Speaker 1: with new procedures? The judge could do everything he can
Speaker 1: in his power to try to prevent leaks, But unfortunately, um, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: it's really difficult to stop somebody from getting their narrative
Speaker 1: out there. I imagine that the new order will be
Speaker 1: a very tight gag order that will have significant penalties
Speaker 1: either side if it comes out that they're the ones
Speaker 1: actually leaking the information. And we typically see this in
Speaker 1: a lot of high profile cases where UM attorneys are
Speaker 1: put under gag orders they can't speak to the press,
Speaker 1: and this can now encompass all the documents that are
Speaker 1: being exchanged between both sides. But unfortunately, this case seems
Speaker 1: like it's, you know, bigger than what we already This
Speaker 1: case seems like it's a lot bigger than what's initially
Speaker 1: being reported, and a lot of other people are implicated,
Speaker 1: and when people are being interviewed by the FBI, it
Speaker 1: could be a lot more than just the ten defendants
Speaker 1: that are already named. Then we've seen a higher profile
Speaker 1: investigation where there seemed never to be any leaks, and
Speaker 1: that's the Special Council Russia investigation. How do you account
Speaker 1: for that? Well, I am, I would disagree with you
Speaker 1: on one point. I think there have been some selective
Speaker 1: leaks that have come out recently. UM. But from all
Speaker 1: from everything I've read and from everything I know about
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller, he is a straight by the book kind
Speaker 1: of guy and he doesn't play dirty, and you know
Speaker 1: that could be a big part of it too, is
Speaker 1: that his personality and the way he runs his operation
Speaker 1: and his investigation is to keep it a lot more
Speaker 1: close to the vest I think recently a few things
Speaker 1: have been uh coming out as it pertains to the
Speaker 1: Russia investigation, because it might be coming to its close
Speaker 1: and they're trying to get certain people to flip and
Speaker 1: give out some information and maybe roll on a few
Speaker 1: people that are higher up that haven't been named yet
Speaker 1: or indicted. Yeah, the leaks are selective recently they seem
Speaker 1: to be coming for for specific reasons. Whereas these leaks
Speaker 1: were were they just we have about thirty seconds here.
Speaker 1: Were you shocked by these leaks? Um, I haven't been
Speaker 1: shocked about anything as it pertains of this case. Because
Speaker 1: when you have an industry, Um, when you have an
Speaker 1: organization like the n c A that runs an industry
Speaker 1: that's multibillions of dollars and it has a labor force
Speaker 1: that doesn't get paid, unfortunately, there's going to be a
Speaker 1: black market. And you know they're labor force. These players
Speaker 1: that generally a lot of them come from low income families.
Speaker 1: They can't afford to even buy a cup of coffee
Speaker 1: on campus, So if somebody's offering you some money, all right,
Speaker 1: We've got to end it there, but we will pick
Speaker 1: up this conversation again. That's Benjamin Levin's and your council
Speaker 1: a Board and Reese. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso. This is Bloomberg