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. On Wednesday, Special
Speaker 1: Counsel Robert Mueller broke his almost two year vow of
Speaker 1: silence to say that he couldn't reach a conclusion on
Speaker 1: whether President Trump had obstructed justice. If we had had
Speaker 1: confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime,
Speaker 1: we would have said so. Now Mueller's statements led more
Speaker 1: Democrats to call for impeachment, something the President says the
Speaker 1: courts won't allow. I don't see how they can, because
Speaker 1: they're possibly allowed, although I can't imagine the courts allowing it.
Speaker 1: The courts, of course, have no role in whether Congress
Speaker 1: can or cannot impeach a president. Joining me as former
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Robert Mann's a partner McCarter in English, Bob,
Speaker 1: did Mueller's statements clarify what was in his report? Because
Speaker 1: it seems that people heard what they wanted to hear,
Speaker 1: and there were as many questions before as after. Well,
Speaker 1: it was a little bit of a political or shock
Speaker 1: test where everybody who listened to that could take away
Speaker 1: whatever they wanted to hear to some extent. But I
Speaker 1: do think Mueller made one point that was crystal clear
Speaker 1: and that may have been misunderstood until he appeared for
Speaker 1: that press conference, and that is that he said that
Speaker 1: charging a sitting president was never an option, no matter
Speaker 1: what the evidence was. So what his investigation was really
Speaker 1: all about was his other question, which was could they
Speaker 1: clear the president of these allegations? And the answer to
Speaker 1: that was, as to the question of collusion, they did
Speaker 1: clear the president. As to the question of obstruction of justice,
Speaker 1: they did not. So, as you say, Mueller accepted the
Speaker 1: Justice Department policy that a sitting president can't be indicted
Speaker 1: and said that even if the charge is kept under
Speaker 1: seal and hidden from public view, that also is prohibited.
Speaker 1: But during Watergate, Leon Jeworski persuaded a grand jury to
Speaker 1: name Richard Nixon as an unindicted co conspirator, So why
Speaker 1: couldn't Mueller have done the same. Well, the president actually
Speaker 1: was named as an unindicted co conspirator in the Michael
Speaker 1: Cone case in New York but but not by name.
Speaker 1: The Department Justice policy says that if you're going to
Speaker 1: make allegations about an individual, you have to charge that individual.
Speaker 1: And the logic behind that is it's unfair to charge
Speaker 1: somebody with a crime, or to suggest that somebody committed
Speaker 1: a crime, but never give them their day in court
Speaker 1: in order to clear their name. So Mueller took that guideline,
Speaker 1: tying it with the other guideline, which says you can
Speaker 1: indict a sitting president. And essentially his mandate was to
Speaker 1: determine whether or not he could clear the president, but
Speaker 1: he was not going to find that the president had
Speaker 1: committed a crime, and that's where he came up short. Now,
Speaker 1: Attorney General Barr interpreted there's rules differently because when he
Speaker 1: gave his summary of what was in the Mueller report,
Speaker 1: he took it upon himself to clear the president of
Speaker 1: of wrongdoing. And that's something that I think was directly
Speaker 1: contrary to what was actually in the Mueller report. And
Speaker 1: I think Mueller came pretty close to saying that he
Speaker 1: broke ranks with the Attorney General on that issue. Mueller
Speaker 1: made it perfectly clear that he did not want to
Speaker 1: testify any further than what he's done in his past,
Speaker 1: and that the report speaks for itself. The report is
Speaker 1: his testimony. But is it likely that Congress will end
Speaker 1: up subpoenaing him and will he have to abide by
Speaker 1: a subpoena? Well, that's the big question. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller is kind of an old school prosecutor. He's
Speaker 1: known as sort of a Joe Friday, just the facts,
Speaker 1: ma'am kind of guy. And I think it was quite
Speaker 1: clear from that statement, which had been carefully scripted and
Speaker 1: just read before reporters taking no questions, that he was
Speaker 1: going to heu pretty closely to the words in that report. Now,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that he will not respond to a subpoena,
Speaker 1: but I think it's gonna be difficult for people in
Speaker 1: Congress to pry additional information out of him. He is
Speaker 1: not somebody who has uh gravitated towards the limelight. He
Speaker 1: likes to simply do his job issues report and let
Speaker 1: the report, as you said, speak for itself. So he
Speaker 1: may be summoned to testify, and I think if he
Speaker 1: is asked, he will testify, But I think Congress is
Speaker 1: going to have a hard time getting additional information out
Speaker 1: of him. It certainly seems so. Now, how much was
Speaker 1: his report designed to take the heat off his investigators
Speaker 1: and prosecutors with this investigation of the investigation by the
Speaker 1: a G. Now, Well, he did address that issue, although
Speaker 1: somewhat indirectly. He stood up for his team conducting the investigation.
Speaker 1: He called it a fair and independent investigation, and he
Speaker 1: said that his team was of the highest integrity, And
Speaker 1: that was clearly a direct response to the ceaseless attacks
Speaker 1: on his team the Trump Some Trump supporters had called
Speaker 1: them angry democrats. I believe the president had called them
Speaker 1: angry democrats. He referred to the entire investigation as a
Speaker 1: witch hunt. Clearly, this is Robert Mueller's understated way to
Speaker 1: stand up for not only the integrity of the investigation,
Speaker 1: but the integrity of the prosecutors who he hand picked
Speaker 1: to help him with his investigation. Many have said that
Speaker 1: Mueller was basically calling for the House to start impeachment proceedings.
Speaker 1: Is that your view? Well, he clearly kicked it over
Speaker 1: to the House by saying that there is another mechanism
Speaker 1: that can be used to determine whether or not the
Speaker 1: president has committed wrongdoing. And although he did not speak
Speaker 1: the word impeachment. That is clearly what he was what
Speaker 1: he was referring to. So it's now really up to
Speaker 1: Congress to decipher exactly what is in that report. And
Speaker 1: as as you mentioned earlier, the question of impeachment is Charlie,
Speaker 1: a political question rather than a legal one. So it's
Speaker 1: really going to depend, I think, in large part on
Speaker 1: taking the pulse of the country, and the Democrats will
Speaker 1: have to decide whether or not it's in their political
Speaker 1: interests to proceed with impeachment. And Bob, if they do
Speaker 1: proceed with impeachment, do the courts give them more leeway
Speaker 1: in calling witnesses for example, Don McGann and some of
Speaker 1: the other witnesses that the president is saying cannot testify
Speaker 1: because of executive privilege. Yeah, I think it would give
Speaker 1: them broader authority in that regard, because then they will
Speaker 1: be looking at the conduct of the president himself as
Speaker 1: opposed to simply being hamstrung by the question of whether
Speaker 1: or not their inquiry is driven by legislation and having
Speaker 1: a legislative purpose. So it would give them a broader
Speaker 1: mandate and probably a greater ability to force people to
Speaker 1: testify before them about a minute here. So what's next
Speaker 1: in your view? Well, I think what's One of the
Speaker 1: things that came out of this that was quite interesting
Speaker 1: was that Robert Mueller made a point of saying that
Speaker 1: one of the things that he found was Russia's concerted
Speaker 1: attack to attack on our political system. He really looked
Speaker 1: at the report as standing up for our institutions, standing
Speaker 1: up for process, standing up for the rule of law.
Speaker 1: I think you can contrast that somewhat with the response
Speaker 1: by the Attorney General, who looked more at whether or
Speaker 1: not he felt that the report and implicated wrongdoing by
Speaker 1: the president. So on the one hand, the Attorney General
Speaker 1: was looking at this more as whether or not there
Speaker 1: was individual wrongdoing, while Robert Mueller was looking more as
Speaker 1: to whether or not there had been damaged to our institutions,
Speaker 1: to the process during the election, and that really was
Speaker 1: his focus. I will have to see whether Congress takes
Speaker 1: up that a to you and strives to protect the
Speaker 1: elections coming forward. All right, thanks so much, Bob. That's
Speaker 1: repert minds of McCarter in English. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: the show on Apple Podcasts. SoundCloud and on bloomberg dot
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg Ye