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. Despite his claims
Speaker 1: that the Rushia investigation is a witch hunt, President Trump
Speaker 1: has maintained that he would be willing to sit down
Speaker 1: for an interview with Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Speaking about
Speaker 1: it earlier this year, I would love to speak. I
Speaker 1: would love to Nobody wants to speak more than me,
Speaker 1: in fact against my lawyers, because most lawyers they never
Speaker 1: speak on editing. I would love to speak now. In
Speaker 1: an interview with Associated Press, Trump's lead lawyer, Rudy Giuliani
Speaker 1: did say that Trump will not answer federal investigators questions
Speaker 1: in person or even in writing about whether he tried
Speaker 1: to block the probe into Russian interference in the election,
Speaker 1: But about a half an hour ago on Air Force One,
Speaker 1: Trump against it. He's open to a Muller Q and
Speaker 1: a under the right circumstances, joining me. As William Banks,
Speaker 1: Professor at Syracuse University Law School, So, Bill, unless you
Speaker 1: can follow the bouncing ball, you can't really keep track
Speaker 1: of what the what the president and his attorney are
Speaker 1: saying about this. But let's talk about written questions. That
Speaker 1: seems to be the easier of solutions, because Trump's lawyers
Speaker 1: would obviously draft any written answers. It is, and and
Speaker 1: I imagine that's certainly his lawyers are pushing hard in
Speaker 1: that direction, both with the Muller team and in their
Speaker 1: conversations with the President. We know the President, however, assist
Speaker 1: inclined not only to disregard his lawyer's advice on many occasions,
Speaker 1: but he likes to talk um. So I can imagine
Speaker 1: an interview where he agrees to speak, and then it's
Speaker 1: a question of, you know, how carefully is and what
Speaker 1: his memory is like, uh, and whether he's entirely truthful.
Speaker 1: So why would Giuliani be ruling out in his latest pronouncement,
Speaker 1: be ruling out written questions and answers. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: it's a matter of internal discussions among the lawyers in
Speaker 1: the White House, and there's probably a debate about whether
Speaker 1: they should try to just for forestall the effort to
Speaker 1: have an interview at all. Instead compromise, So oral or
Speaker 1: written I think is part of the compromise situation. In
Speaker 1: the end. I think, you know, if if Mueller continues
Speaker 1: to push hard for an interview with the president, he's
Speaker 1: he's likely to get it. We know that he could
Speaker 1: probably force it through through a grand jury. He could
Speaker 1: probably subpoena Trump uh and force him to appear. That's
Speaker 1: why that's the way it started between ken Starrnville Clinton
Speaker 1: twenty years ago and then the Negotiati settlement, and the
Speaker 1: President did have an interview in the White House. It
Speaker 1: wasn't particularly successful. It was it was more of a
Speaker 1: of a media show than anything else, and it didn't
Speaker 1: really impact the eventual proceedings of impeachment against Clinton. So Muller,
Speaker 1: what is Mueller's the advantage to Muller in allowing written
Speaker 1: answers where he doesn't get to, you know, test the
Speaker 1: president's memory and see his demeanor. Well, it's not as
Speaker 1: good as as an interview, that's for sure. But you know,
Speaker 1: we have to remember that Mueller has many sources to
Speaker 1: draw on here to issue his final report or to
Speaker 1: take whatever ever other additional steps you might want to take.
Speaker 1: He's got interviews of what two dozen or more other
Speaker 1: witnesses who were involved in the administration who had close
Speaker 1: knowledge both of the Russia aspect and of the COMI firing,
Speaker 1: and it's going to be the Comic firing and potential obstruction.
Speaker 1: I think that the lawyers are advising the president to
Speaker 1: a void. They don't want to get him in with
Speaker 1: what Mr Giuliani is called the perjury trap. And you
Speaker 1: know that's that's good advice. So let's turn now to
Speaker 1: the anonymous op ed. President Trump just said that he
Speaker 1: wants Attorney General Jeff's Sessions to investigate the author of
Speaker 1: the anonymous op ed. He said, I think it's national security.
Speaker 1: I would say Jeff should be investigating who the author
Speaker 1: of that pieces because I really believe it is national security.
Speaker 1: So is an investigation by the Justice Department in order here? Well,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. You know, this is one of
Speaker 1: those things that you know, the President is h he's
Speaker 1: a very smart man, and he's using miss again to obscure,
Speaker 1: obscure the underlying difficulties that he's in because of the
Speaker 1: Mueller investigation. You know, the op it was an extraordinary
Speaker 1: event for sure, or extraordinary that it exists. An extraordinary
Speaker 1: that was published anonymously by The New York Times. But
Speaker 1: it's not an action security issue. There's no you knows,
Speaker 1: as several people that have commented in the last couple
Speaker 1: of days. Uh, you know, there's dissent and discussion inside
Speaker 1: the administration all the time, not just the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Every administration government is making sausage and executive branch in
Speaker 1: the same way that that the Congress makes sausage and
Speaker 1: trying to draft legislation. So I think this will blow over, uh,
Speaker 1: in the same way that so much has blown over
Speaker 1: in the Trump administration. And again he's using it very cleverly,
Speaker 1: I think, to try to distract us from other issues
Speaker 1: before it blows over. Let me ask you another question
Speaker 1: about it. He also said on Air Force one again
Speaker 1: that he's administered ration is looking into taking legal action
Speaker 1: against The Times for publishing the article. Is there any
Speaker 1: kind of legal action you could imagine against the Times
Speaker 1: for publishing an op ed? No, is the short answer.
Speaker 1: There's an absolute First Amendment right to publish. There's no
Speaker 1: such thing as a priory straint. There's you know, as
Speaker 1: the President himself has admitted on various occasions, the libel
Speaker 1: laws in this country, as he says, are are very
Speaker 1: uh favorable to the speaker or the writer, as they
Speaker 1: well should be. That's our whole tradition in our history
Speaker 1: in the United States, would be I think, the core
Speaker 1: freedom that neither The New York Times or any of
Speaker 1: us would be willing to give up. It's obvious that
Speaker 1: not only the op ed, but the publication of the
Speaker 1: book by Bob Woodward is weighing on the president and
Speaker 1: it hasn't even really come out yet. But he also
Speaker 1: said today that if Gary Cohen took those papers off
Speaker 1: his desk, he'll never speak to him again. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know what to make of his
Speaker 1: reaction to the Woodword Book, because, as you said, things happen.
Speaker 1: You know, there are people inside white houses that talk
Speaker 1: all the time and say not nice things about presidents.
Speaker 1: That's right. And you know it's not Mr Trump who's
Speaker 1: special in this case. That's been true probably every president
Speaker 1: in our history, for those who work for him and
Speaker 1: try to shape policy that eventually gets made by the
Speaker 1: executive branch. So I think, yes, the Woodword Book is
Speaker 1: uh is powerful because he's such a credible source and
Speaker 1: such a highly regarded journalist with a long distinguished record.
Speaker 1: So his sources, some of whom will identify themselves, and
Speaker 1: others won't, I think, have a great deal more credibility,
Speaker 1: say than the book that was published last winner or
Speaker 1: in the Winner of seventeam. So you know, again, the
Speaker 1: president has reason to be concerned about the releases, but
Speaker 1: there isn't anything he can do about them. All right,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Bill. As always, that's William Banks. He's
Speaker 1: a professor at Syracuse University Law School. Today is the
Speaker 1: fourth and final day of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings
Speaker 1: on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. In two
Speaker 1: days of questioning, Kavanaugh refused to answer pointed questions on
Speaker 1: a host of subjects ranging from abortion to presidential powers,
Speaker 1: always refusing to answer any questions pertaining to President Trump.
Speaker 1: Here's Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal asking him about Justice Ruth
Speaker 1: Pader Ginsburg. This is not political, this is about Justice Ginsberg.
Speaker 1: You believe that her quote mind is shot, end quote Sarah. Respectfully,
Speaker 1: you're asking me to after having read those comments. You're
Speaker 1: asking me to comment on something another person said, and
Speaker 1: I'm not going to do that. Joining me is Greg
Speaker 1: store Bloomberg, new Supreme Court reporter who has been watching
Speaker 1: just about every minute of these hearings, right, Greg, as
Speaker 1: much as I could. Okay, So I have to say
Speaker 1: that that exchange with Bloomenthal surprised me, even though I
Speaker 1: had heard, you know, much of what Judge Kavanaugh said.
Speaker 1: Why would a nominee refuse to say that an icon
Speaker 1: on the Court has not lost it? Well, Judge Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: clearly was trying to stay as far away as he
Speaker 1: could from political controversies. And even though that was about
Speaker 1: a future colleague, that was clearly a comment had he
Speaker 1: been critical of what President Trump said, That was a
Speaker 1: comment that was going to be used for political purposes. Uh,
Speaker 1: And he wanted to stay away from that. He didn't
Speaker 1: need to. This was a hearing where, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: really his main goal was to avoid making mistakes, and
Speaker 1: that was an area that potentially could have been mistake
Speaker 1: for him. Now it seemed as if he went even
Speaker 1: further than Neil Gorstch did in his nomination hearings in
Speaker 1: an attempt not to say anything. I mean, he refused
Speaker 1: to say, which gorste did, that it's not right to
Speaker 1: denigrade judges because of their ethnic background. He refused to
Speaker 1: say he would refuse himself from certain cases, even though
Speaker 1: other justices have agreed to that. Is there a fear
Speaker 1: that Trump could rescind the nomination if he hears something
Speaker 1: he doesn't like. Well, you know that that's an interesting question.
Speaker 1: There were reports that uh, Donald Trump at least discussed
Speaker 1: resending Gorsige's nomination after he made those comments about being
Speaker 1: disheartened about about criticism of the judiciary or suggestions that
Speaker 1: a judge might be influenced by his or her ethnic background. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, I can't say what was motivating Brett Kavanaugh. Um,
Speaker 1: you are right, he did. He was even more careful
Speaker 1: than than Neil Gorcer was and in trying to stay
Speaker 1: out of those areas. Um. Uh, you know, did not
Speaker 1: give the Democrats the kind of answers that they wanted.
Speaker 1: But Democrats are powerless to to stop them. Giving the
Speaker 1: Republican control of the Senate. No, there were some unusual
Speaker 1: exchanges with Senator Kamala Harris about whether he talked with
Speaker 1: anyone at a law firm Casuits about the Muller investigation.
Speaker 1: Did that end up going anywhere? Did Harris have any
Speaker 1: proof that he that he did talk to someone, because
Speaker 1: it was really a point that was pushed and pushed.
Speaker 1: Yeah she had any proof, she didn't show it. Um. No,
Speaker 1: it seemed like on on the first day of questioning,
Speaker 1: she seemed like she knew something. She was asking him,
Speaker 1: she had this idea in her head that, uh, it
Speaker 1: seemed that maybe he had had an inappropriate conversation, and
Speaker 1: he was very worry about giving an answer. By day two, Uh,
Speaker 1: he had identified one person in the firm that he
Speaker 1: that he knows pretty well and said no, I did
Speaker 1: didn't have any conversations with him or or anybody else
Speaker 1: at the firm about the Muller investigation. And then that
Speaker 1: was the end of it. Now. Senator Corey Booker ignited
Speaker 1: a little bit of a firestorm there when he, you know,
Speaker 1: said that he was trying to clarify where Kavanaugh stands
Speaker 1: on one of the one of his most controversial judicial
Speaker 1: decisions related to race. Where where do you see that
Speaker 1: he stands. Is it clear or it's ambiguous on the
Speaker 1: subject of race. So so Senator Booker was looking at
Speaker 1: a couple memos, a couple of emails that Judge Kavanaugh wrote,
Speaker 1: um or our series of emails that that he wrote
Speaker 1: back when he was working in the Bush administration. One
Speaker 1: of them had to do with the case involving minority
Speaker 1: set asides and in federal contracting. Uh. And in that
Speaker 1: case uh, Mr Kavanaugh then Mr Kafanhaugh used language made
Speaker 1: it pretty clear he was very skeptical about this program.
Speaker 1: He called it a naked racial set aside um. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, the other document that the other series
Speaker 1: that that that Booker was getting into had to do
Speaker 1: with racial profiling after nine eleven at airports, and they're
Speaker 1: what touch Kavanaugh Brett Kavanaugh seemed to say pretty clearly
Speaker 1: said was that he was not on the side of
Speaker 1: using racial profiling at airports, at least as a long
Speaker 1: term measure um. He would rather find a race neutral
Speaker 1: way to ensure that airports are safe. So it was
Speaker 1: in some ways a mixed bag of stuff that that
Speaker 1: emerged from those emails. Now most people are saying that
Speaker 1: nothing really moved, No one moved in their positions on Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Does that include the two Republican female senators who are
Speaker 1: pointed at as possible votes for abortion. Yeah, they're They're
Speaker 1: both saying they don't have a final decision yet Uh.
Speaker 1: Nothing Uh that they said indicated that they are changing
Speaker 1: from where where they've been, which is leaning towards voting
Speaker 1: to confirm him. Uh. Senator Collins UH did suggest that
Speaker 1: she was not especially bothered by another email that came
Speaker 1: out during this process, in which um Brett Kavanaugh, while
Speaker 1: working at the White House, had uh suggested some some
Speaker 1: language be changed in a draft op ed where originally
Speaker 1: it said that legal experts widely accept Rovie Wade as
Speaker 1: as settled law. He suggested that, um, you know, that's
Speaker 1: not quite accurate. There are a lot of legal experts
Speaker 1: who feel otherwise. But Susan Collins said she you know
Speaker 1: what she'd heard about that she wasn't particularly bothered. So
Speaker 1: every reason to think that they are likely to vote
Speaker 1: to confirm him, and he will be confirmed, all right,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Gregg. That's Gregg's store. He's the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: News Supreme Court reporter. And of course we know that
Speaker 1: it has been said by Mitch McConnell that he hopes
Speaker 1: to have a vote on Kavanaugh before the new Supreme
Speaker 1: Court term starts, and it's always the first Monday in Octour.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen into the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg m