Speaker 1: So far, every crucial moment that has come along in
Speaker 1: the whole Muller investigation thing has been letting air out
Speaker 1: of the Trump impeachment balloon, right, so far, not inflating it. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And we'll see if there's yet another one of those
Speaker 1: tomorrow when Muller testifies in front of two House committees.
Speaker 1: Rosalind Helderman is a Washington Post reporter focusing on political
Speaker 1: enterprise story and stories and investigations, and joins us. Now, Rosalind,
Speaker 1: how are you? I'm good? How are you excellent? I
Speaker 1: noticed there in your your curriculum, vite, he says, trying
Speaker 1: to to appear to be your equal, A p A
Speaker 1: in history from Harvard Hunt. Do you have a favorite era?
Speaker 1: I love history of all kinds. I like the modern era. Um,
Speaker 1: but yeah, that's a that's a long ago resume point.
Speaker 1: Well that's all right. We just we're both history freaks
Speaker 1: and what we like talking about it with anybody wants to,
Speaker 1: but you clearly don't. So listen, let's talk about the
Speaker 1: Muller testimony tomorrow. And I've read some of your reporting
Speaker 1: in the good stuff that Devilon Barrett and Matt Zappatosky
Speaker 1: have written. In the post um, the more I learned,
Speaker 1: the less I expect. Is that wrong? I don't think
Speaker 1: so necessarily. I mean, you know, we only heard from
Speaker 1: Bob Moore once across this entire investigation. He gave that
Speaker 1: public statement in May announcing that he was closing the
Speaker 1: investigation that was less than ten minutes long, and he
Speaker 1: said several times in the course of that statement that
Speaker 1: he did not especially wish to testify before Congress, that
Speaker 1: he considered his report to be his testimony, uh, and
Speaker 1: that he found additional testimony to be unnecessary. So you're
Speaker 1: dealing kind of with a with a hostile witness. His
Speaker 1: goal is to not share anything beyond his report and
Speaker 1: to not make any any news. Now that having been said,
Speaker 1: he really didn't make any news at that press conference
Speaker 1: in May either. He didn't say any sing that wasn't
Speaker 1: in the report then either, And yet for a lot
Speaker 1: of people that was still surprising just to hear him
Speaker 1: say the things that were in the report made a
Speaker 1: lot of news open some people's eyes. So Democrats are
Speaker 1: sort of hopeful that if they can just get him
Speaker 1: to talk about what's actually in the report, maybe it
Speaker 1: will sort of refocus Americans attention on some of the day.
Speaker 1: So far, every crucial moment that has come along in
Speaker 1: the whole Mueller investigation thing has been letting air out
Speaker 1: of the Trump impeachment balloon right so far, at least
Speaker 1: not inflating it. Yeah. Yeah, And we'll see if there's
Speaker 1: yet another one of those tomorrow when Mueller testifies in
Speaker 1: front of two House committees. Rosalind Helderman is a Washington
Speaker 1: Post reporter focusing on political enterprise story and stories and investigations,
Speaker 1: and joins us. Now, Rosalind, how are you. I'm good?
Speaker 1: How are you excellent? I noticed there in your your
Speaker 1: curriculum vte, he says, trying to to appear to be
Speaker 1: your equal A BA in history from Harvard Hunt. Do
Speaker 1: you have a favorite era? I love history of all kinds.
Speaker 1: I like the modern era. Um, but yeah, that's a
Speaker 1: that's a long ago resume point. Well, that's all right.
Speaker 1: We just we're both history freaks, and so we like
Speaker 1: talking about it with anybody wants to, but you clearly don't.
Speaker 1: So listen, let's talk about the Mueller testimony tomorrow. And
Speaker 1: I've read some of your reporting in the good stuff
Speaker 1: that Devlin Barrett and Matt Zappatosky have written in the
Speaker 1: post um, the more I learned, the less I expect.
Speaker 1: Is that wrong? I don't think so necessarily. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, we only heard from Bob Moore once across
Speaker 1: this entire investigation. He gave that public statement in May
Speaker 1: announcing that he was closing the investigation that was less
Speaker 1: than ten minutes long, and he said several times in
Speaker 1: the course of that statement that he did not especially
Speaker 1: wish to testify before Congress, that he considered his report
Speaker 1: to be his testimony, uh, and that he found additional
Speaker 1: testimony to be unnecessary. So you're dealing kind of with
Speaker 1: a with a hostile witness. His goal is to not
Speaker 1: share anything beyond his report and to not make any
Speaker 1: any news. Now that having been said, he really didn't
Speaker 1: make any news at that press conference in May either.
Speaker 1: He didn't say anything that wasn't in the report then either,
Speaker 1: And yet for a lot of people that was still
Speaker 1: surprising just to hear him say the things that were
Speaker 1: in the report made a lot of news open some
Speaker 1: people's eyes. So Democrats are sort of hopeful that if
Speaker 1: they can just get him to talk about what's actually
Speaker 1: in the report, maybe it will sort of refocus Americans
Speaker 1: attention on some of the damaging details that are actually
Speaker 1: contained in that document. Kind of reminds you the Battle
Speaker 1: of Hastings, doesn't history major trying to drag you back
Speaker 1: into baby So yeah, I think I get it that
Speaker 1: I saw one report where they're gonna cut up portions
Speaker 1: of Democrats. So this is a good idea. Are going
Speaker 1: to cut up portions of Mueller's testimony, which is just
Speaker 1: basically the Muller Report, but nobody's read it, uh and
Speaker 1: and get that out on social media and hope there's
Speaker 1: this is a second chance to get out the information
Speaker 1: that he gathered, thinking it will be damaging to the president.
Speaker 1: Is that the goal? Yeah, I mean I think we've
Speaker 1: heard a little bit that the Democrats on the House
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee, who are likely to be focused a little
Speaker 1: bit more on what the Russians did during the investigation
Speaker 1: and the moments where the Trump campaigns seemed to sort
Speaker 1: of welcome the Russian assistance, even if there was not
Speaker 1: a criminal conspiracy um, which we know from the report.
Speaker 1: Uh So, there's some sense that they may try to
Speaker 1: push Mower to provide some new facts to go a
Speaker 1: little bit beyond the four corners of the report. The
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee Democrats, who are apparently going to focus on
Speaker 1: the second volume of the report, dealing with possible obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice, have signaled that they intend to stick much
Speaker 1: more closely to what's actually in the document and basically
Speaker 1: try to get Bob Moller to narrate some of these
Speaker 1: rather dramatic moments where the president really did appear to
Speaker 1: try to interfere in the investigation and kind of just
Speaker 1: lay out those facts and so that Americans better understand, uh,
Speaker 1: some of the president's behavior. Not I fully get that. Now,
Speaker 1: which one's first, the which committees first? I believe Judiciary
Speaker 1: is okay, So, and that's the one where they're going
Speaker 1: to try to get him to narrate the report. As
Speaker 1: you just said, Yeah, a little backward, feel like you
Speaker 1: start with Russia and then go to obstruction. But I
Speaker 1: think I think it's going to go in the other order.
Speaker 1: But is there any reason he's going to go along
Speaker 1: with that? I mean, he doesn't have to be the
Speaker 1: dancing monkey that reads the reporter. Really just say it's
Speaker 1: on page you could I don't feel like it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean we'll know in twenty four hours, you know,
Speaker 1: we do have some sense of him that, you know,
Speaker 1: he does not like partisan nonsense. He doesn't want to
Speaker 1: be there. He's he's already been given some restrictions by
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice on what they think he should
Speaker 1: be talking about. On the other hand, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't think that the Special Counsel's Office and the prosecutors
Speaker 1: in that office wrote report, uh just for their own
Speaker 1: sense of fun. Like I do think that they want
Speaker 1: Americans to read it, and they want Americans to understand
Speaker 1: what's in it. That's a good point. So, you know,
Speaker 1: so we may find that he is a little less
Speaker 1: hostile than you would think from that may press conference
Speaker 1: that if the Democrats don't push him too hard, if
Speaker 1: they don't sort of try to get him to go
Speaker 1: somewhere that's not in the report in terms of like
Speaker 1: declaring that the president committed a crime, he may be
Speaker 1: willing to do a certain amount of just describing what's
Speaker 1: in the report. Right although I think, and I just
Speaker 1: learned this this morning. He Mueller asked, and we're talking
Speaker 1: about Rosalyn Hilderman of the Washington Post um about the
Speaker 1: Mueller hearings tomorrow. But Mueller asked to be subpoenaed, and
Speaker 1: I just realized I found out why. It's so he's
Speaker 1: now got to follow in effect the rules of a
Speaker 1: Justice Department employee, which include, for instance, not um not
Speaker 1: impugning unindicted uncharged third parties, not in fact not even
Speaker 1: discussing them. Established policy I'm quoting from the post now
Speaker 1: also precludes any comment on the facts developed in legal
Speaker 1: conclusions by the Special Counsel's Office with respect and uncharged individuals.
Speaker 1: I mean, it really sounds like the rules are pretty
Speaker 1: he's pretty well climbed down by them. Well, so he's
Speaker 1: got this letter now in hand. So if he encounters
Speaker 1: questions he doesn't want to answer, he has sort of
Speaker 1: the ability to fall back and say, the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice has indicated I shouldn't be answering these. But at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, it's going to be him.
Speaker 1: They're live and it will be up to him what
Speaker 1: to answer. There's very little sort of recourse the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice would have against him, uh if he didn't
Speaker 1: follow those guidelines. And what's more, you know, you might
Speaker 1: remember the Attorney General came out maybe a week or
Speaker 1: two ago and actually said that he thought that the
Speaker 1: Special Council shouldn't have to testify at all, and sort
Speaker 1: of signal that if Bob Mueller wanted to say, wanted
Speaker 1: to refuse, the Department of Justice would fight on his behalf.
Speaker 1: He kind of signaled that, you know, they would have
Speaker 1: his back if he wanted to tell Congress, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to show up, there's no need for this. Then
Speaker 1: there's this whole series you'll recall of other administration to
Speaker 1: face hills who are in that posture, who have refused
Speaker 1: to show up in the Department of Justice is going
Speaker 1: to fight in court on their behalf to not appear.
Speaker 1: And it appears as though Special Council Miller has not
Speaker 1: taken the Department of Justice up on that sort of
Speaker 1: vague offer to fight for him. He is going to
Speaker 1: show up. And so you know, a lot of this
Speaker 1: is in the mind of Bob Miller and none of us.
Speaker 1: None of that's the place, none of us live, Just
Speaker 1: like the Enlightenment. Wouldn't you say better one than that
Speaker 1: when you stole my Rosalind Helderman Washington Post A reporter, Well,
Speaker 1: I guess we'll find out together. Rosalind enjoyed the chat
Speaker 1: as always very much. Thanks for the time. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for having me. What we'll make tomorrow's history tomorrow?
Speaker 1: All right, I'll jump that down. That's very clever. I
Speaker 1: got a couple of chuckles out of the history nerd
Speaker 1: from Harvard, so that's what was my goal. So I
Speaker 1: was gonna ask this interview, was your Waterloo Rosland? That's
Speaker 1: better than what I said, significantly better. Um oh, and
Speaker 1: you know what I wanted to go with, what was
Speaker 1: the disastrous campaign that the Churchill led World War Only? Yeah,
Speaker 1: except I wasn't a hundred percent sure how to pronounce it.
Speaker 1: I thought it was Gallipoli, So that's fun to say.
Speaker 1: Let's say it together. We didn't get to the other
Speaker 1: side of the aisle, which you know I should ask her.
Speaker 1: But uh, Republicans. The claim is Republicans. This is their
Speaker 1: opportunity to drill down on how when did you know
Speaker 1: the Steele dossier was bogus? And why did you keep
Speaker 1: going all this sort of Does he need to answer
Speaker 1: those questions or does he The short answer is no,
Speaker 1: and we made reference to him. I'm sorry, we probably
Speaker 1: should have explained it better. But this letter from the
Speaker 1: Justice Department instructing Old Bob Muller on what he can
Speaker 1: and cannot say and should and should not say. It
Speaker 1: really limits him. It's from the Deputy Attorney General. Mueller
Speaker 1: requested earlier this month guidance on how to handle questions
Speaker 1: quote concerning privilege or other legal bars applicable to potential
Speaker 1: testimony in connection with the subpoenis and and the report
Speaker 1: and the letter notes Mueller had resisted testifying. The Department
Speaker 1: agrees that you shouldn't be testifying anyway. It's unnecessary and
Speaker 1: that will remind you. Don't say anything about unindicted individuals
Speaker 1: or uncharged individuals. Um, you've got to follow all the
Speaker 1: court orders and blah blah blah, and just in other words,
Speaker 1: shut your mouth. And I expect him to give little.
Speaker 1: Now I'm trying to think through, based on my legal education,
Speaker 1: which included almost applying to law school, whether if they
Speaker 1: asked him, when did you know the still dossier was fake?
Speaker 1: If he probably just sayd I'm not prepared to discuss that.
Speaker 1: You might hear that phrase over and over again. Justice
Speaker 1: Department rules preclude me from discussing that. You better get prepared, buddy.
Speaker 1: That's that's what my yes to. All right, Well, Okay
Speaker 1: asked whether Mueller intended to speak beyond his report. One
Speaker 1: of the media people involved in in his his getting
Speaker 1: ready to testify referred to a main news conference in
Speaker 1: which Mueller said he would not, and added, as he
Speaker 1: made pretty clear, then you can expect him to stick
Speaker 1: pretty close to the four walls of the report. This
Speaker 1: could be almost laughably uncomfortable tomorrow. Then that would be
Speaker 1: perfect when like the fifth person in a row asked
Speaker 1: him as a question and he says again with a sigh,
Speaker 1: as I've said previously, I'm most I would refer you
Speaker 1: to the report. If the president was any other person,
Speaker 1: would you have indicted him. I'm not prepared to testify
Speaker 1: as to the hypothetical blah blah blah he probably in. Actually,
Speaker 1: we'll probably have a stock phrase that doesn't even go
Speaker 1: that far. It'll be down beyond the scope of the
Speaker 1: report and go to lunch or bringing a bringing a
Speaker 1: comedian to do a do an act for a little time,
Speaker 1: or stretch stretch. Ye, I don't know. It could be
Speaker 1: laughably weird tomorrow. If he just refuses to answer any questions,
Speaker 1: that'd be perfect. Or he could say I act all right. Finally,
Speaker 1: I bet I've been aching to tell you this. Listen
Speaker 1: to that I picked the guy, you know, that's sort
Speaker 1: of thing. It