Speaker 1: In an interview this week with The New York Times,
Speaker 1: President Trump made some remarkably pointed remarks, including this one
Speaker 1: about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Russia investigation. I
Speaker 1: think it's very unfair to the president. How do you
Speaker 1: take a job and then refuse yourself. If he would
Speaker 1: have refused himself before the job, I would have said, thanks, Jeff,
Speaker 1: But I can't. You know, I'm not gonna thank you.
Speaker 1: It's extremely unfair, and that's a mild word to the president.
Speaker 1: So he recuses himself. I then end up with a
Speaker 1: second man, who's a deputy President. Trump also claimed that
Speaker 1: Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who's conducting the investigation, has conflicts
Speaker 1: of interest and should not investigate President Trump's personal finances,
Speaker 1: although Bloomberg News reported yesterday that Mueller's office has already
Speaker 1: expanded its investigation into Trump business transactions, and The Washington
Speaker 1: Post reported last night the Trump lawyers and staffers are
Speaker 1: investigating the investigators working in Mueller's office and that the
Speaker 1: president may be examining his power to pardon those under investigation. Well,
Speaker 1: that's an awful lot going on, but here to talk
Speaker 1: with us about what this is likely to mean for
Speaker 1: the investigation into Russian colusion. Are two attorneys with exceptional
Speaker 1: records of public service uh AND who have looked at
Speaker 1: elected officials over the years. Peter Zeidenberg, a partner at
Speaker 1: Aaron Fox who in many years at the Justice Department
Speaker 1: UH included time at in the public Integrity section. And
Speaker 1: Richard ben venist Day, a partner at brayermnt LP who
Speaker 1: is one of the lead prosecutors on the Watergate Special
Speaker 1: Prosecution Task Force. Richard, the president is said a lot
Speaker 1: in this interview about UM different officials who the FBI
Speaker 1: that the thinks the FBI Report Director reports directly to
Speaker 1: the president, talked about his ability to get rid of
Speaker 1: the investigation entirely made the comments I mentioned earlier and
Speaker 1: the one we played. What he's got this investigation going on?
Speaker 1: What can you discern in terms of what the president
Speaker 1: and strategy is here? I don't see that the president
Speaker 1: has any strategy. He's created chaos throughout at least the
Speaker 1: Justice Department UH and has repeatedly made contradictory statements UH
Speaker 1: and statements that go on the will beyond the pale
Speaker 1: in terms of being the subject of an investigation which
Speaker 1: by this time, no doubt President Trump is. And so
Speaker 1: I think you start with the notion that h he
Speaker 1: has been stealing like a tea kettle and may reach
Speaker 1: the boil at any moment, provoking a constitutional crisis. Uh,
Speaker 1: he cannot abide the situation he finds himself in with
Speaker 1: Sessions quite properly recusing and Trump seething at sessions decision
Speaker 1: that put in Starring in the position as acting Attorney General,
Speaker 1: a man wide widely praised on both sides of the aisle,
Speaker 1: and confirmed I think by a vote of two um.
Speaker 1: So he's Trump's pick. And then he promptly appoints Bob
Speaker 1: Mueller as UH special counsel. Now, Bob Muller has bipartisans support,
Speaker 1: and rightly so, because he is an extraordinary pick to
Speaker 1: leave the investigation. He is a man of unmatched integrity,
Speaker 1: great experience as a former federal prosecutor and the former
Speaker 1: FBI director, and there's no one who could suggest that
Speaker 1: he lacks the integrity to conduct the investigation. Peter, let's
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about President Trump being very upset
Speaker 1: about his personal finances being looked into. Mueller is empowered
Speaker 1: to look at any matters arising from his investigation. Everyone
Speaker 1: who knows these kinds of investigations, No, you follow the money?
Speaker 1: Is he is following the money within his purview? Yeah? Absolutely, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, you're, you're, any investigation is going to be
Speaker 1: looking at these financial relationships, um, with Russians and with
Speaker 1: Russia and trying to understand um for one thing, motive um,
Speaker 1: which could explain the relationships and the behavior, you know,
Speaker 1: the frankly bizarre behavior um of the president in regards
Speaker 1: to Russia and why he may have colluded, which is
Speaker 1: part of the investigation. So if there is indebtedness that
Speaker 1: he has with Russia or Russians that these old arks
Speaker 1: with business with loans, um, then it's absolutely fair game.
Speaker 1: And in fact, he would be derelict if look at
Speaker 1: it this way. Let's let's say he looked at it narrowly.
Speaker 1: I'm only gonna look at the last sixteen months. President
Speaker 1: Trump's apparent unhappiness with the investigation into possible collusion with
Speaker 1: Russia manifested itself this week in a number of statements
Speaker 1: the President made, including assertions that the special investigator has
Speaker 1: conflicts of interest and that it would cross a red
Speaker 1: line if the investigation looks at his finances. We're talking
Speaker 1: about the investigation with two former government officials, Peter Zeidenberg
Speaker 1: of Aaron Fox and Richard Benveniste of Mayor Brown. Peter,
Speaker 1: the President does appear to be doing trying to do
Speaker 1: something to affect at least perception of this investigation by
Speaker 1: making all these comments. Is it likely to have any
Speaker 1: impact on Special Counsel Robert Mueller? Not directly on Mueller
Speaker 1: or his team. This is pure background noise to them,
Speaker 1: and they're not gonna it's not gonna make one bit
Speaker 1: of difference to them at all. They're not going to
Speaker 1: be intimidated by it. They're not going to be particularly
Speaker 1: bothered by it. But it's more of a political question, um,
Speaker 1: because he's trying to stir up his base and to
Speaker 1: get put out talking points for Fox News and for
Speaker 1: you know, avid supporters of of the president to uh.
Speaker 1: And it's it's really just a political gamp, but not
Speaker 1: a legal one. And um, Richard, he's also been talking,
Speaker 1: according to what Washington Post last night, he's been the
Speaker 1: President has been asking about his partnering power and even
Speaker 1: about partnering himself. Can a president pardon himself? It's not
Speaker 1: been determined by the courts whether that's possible. Um. I
Speaker 1: think the stronger argument is that it's not. If you
Speaker 1: look at the history of the pardon power, and he
Speaker 1: may be sending a message to those who have information
Speaker 1: damaging to the president, um, that he has his power
Speaker 1: and is prepared to use it. So they ought to
Speaker 1: stay in line. Now he can pardon anyone other than himself. Uh,
Speaker 1: there there will be tremendous political consequences for him doing so,
Speaker 1: because that would truncate the investigation certainly at this early point. Peter,
Speaker 1: you know, when you when you look at these comments
Speaker 1: the president has made, and the fact is thinking about pardons,
Speaker 1: that they're investigating, the investigators who are investigating them, that
Speaker 1: he is uh that you know, he said all these
Speaker 1: things about who reports to who, and whether Sessions should
Speaker 1: be attorney general. One wonders about, in the context of
Speaker 1: the obstruction of justice investigation, what does the president seem
Speaker 1: to think about? You know, what do these comments tell
Speaker 1: us about the way the president thinks about his relationship
Speaker 1: to other officials in the government. Well, I'll make the
Speaker 1: same observations that others have made in the last day
Speaker 1: or so, which is this is all of a piece
Speaker 1: that shows that, you know, the president seems to think
Speaker 1: that he treats the government like he's the CEO of
Speaker 1: an organization and everyone reports to him and he's the
Speaker 1: boss of everyone. UM. That's not the way d o J,
Speaker 1: for instance, works. UM. The FBI director doesn't report directly
Speaker 1: to the president, like he said, he reports to the
Speaker 1: attorney general, actually the deputy attorney general. So there are
Speaker 1: structures in place and UM and norms in place, and
Speaker 1: the president has no understanding how any of that works.
Speaker 1: And that's to put it charitably. UM. Just on the
Speaker 1: point that Richard made about UM the pardon power of
Speaker 1: parting one self, whether he could pardon himself, I think
Speaker 1: that that is UM an issue that's really an away
Speaker 1: academic because I don't think it's likely or or even
Speaker 1: in the realm of possibility, that he would be indicted anyway.
Speaker 1: I think the light more much greater likelihood is that
Speaker 1: he would be impeached, in which case partying himself would
Speaker 1: only make it more likely he'd be impeached, not less likely. Richard,
Speaker 1: you were Watergate prosecutor, and there has been some noise
Speaker 1: that President Trump might try to fire the special counsel
Speaker 1: as he fired Jim Comey. Would that parallel the seventy
Speaker 1: three Saturday Night massacre? I think it would be even
Speaker 1: worse on the circumstances where he's already used his executive
Speaker 1: power to fire Jim Comey, who was investigating him and
Speaker 1: other aspects. Um, He's also fired Tree Baha, the U
Speaker 1: S Attorney for the Southern District of New York. So
Speaker 1: you see a pattern of firing people who have the
Speaker 1: power to do him harm, and they do him harm
Speaker 1: only in connection with their legal authority to investigate longdoing
Speaker 1: each of these steps makes Trump look more and more
Speaker 1: guilty of something. And if, in fact, Uh he fires
Speaker 1: Mueller or attempts to do so through the chain of
Speaker 1: command that the Justice Department by firing people who refuse
Speaker 1: to do so until he gets to one who will,
Speaker 1: then he's created a constitutional crisis in this country. He
Speaker 1: looks guilty as hell as Nixon did. By the way,
Speaker 1: when he fired Archibald cox Um, people who are on
Speaker 1: the sidelines are under side did said to themselves, what
Speaker 1: is he hiding to incur this kind of chaos upon
Speaker 1: the country, Uh, Peter, In just about twenty seconds, do
Speaker 1: you think that what the President said makes the case
Speaker 1: easier for Muller to make, uh, you know, because of
Speaker 1: an obstruction you know, he has made so many comments,
Speaker 1: um like this to show state of mind in terms
Speaker 1: of a possible obstruction case. You know, at this point,
Speaker 1: it's it's just guilding the lily. He's made it very
Speaker 1: clear why he fired uh Comey and his interest in
Speaker 1: firing Mueller. So he's just digging the hole deeper. Well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to leave it there. Are thanks to
Speaker 1: Peter Zeidenberg of Aaron Fox and Richard Bandernisti of Mayor
Speaker 1: Brown for being here. On Bloomberg Law. Coming up, we're
Speaker 1: gonna be talking about whether the Federal Trade Commission is
Speaker 1: acting as aggressively under President Trump as it did under
Speaker 1: President Obama. That's right ahead on Bloomberg Law. You're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Radio. This is Bloomberg m