22 Burst results for "Bob Bauer"
"bob bauer" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"My lyle law offices and that bill team and i didn't hear that launch. You didn't have your window. That's not an unusual role. When i came on board the reagan white house of former ambassador. David abshir and charles brower were already serving in a role of coordinating with independent counsel. Just to make sure that all document requests were properly handle that sort of thing and Bill clinton fell. I described Stepped into that role. I think lanny davis certain extent in the clinton white house Serve that role. I mean you think of it. this way. Every day that that special counsel does not receive documents that he or she wants every day. That a witness steph arms. Some white house employees. That's a it's a day where the presence political capital is being. Frittered away Because the the existence of these investigations erodes public confidence. They erode approval ratings. and so. i think it's a very critical role. that tuykov is filling so sort of moving to to the issue of special counsels. There's been a lot of Public reports about have special counsel muller being a particularly aggressive or moving quite quickly with respect to to paul manafort or others as your counseling president in this sort of intensive investigation space. How does being confronted with something like a very aggressive special prosecutor sort of shade the device or shade. The job look me. Get the softballs right. I've known bob muller. He was deputy assistant attorney general for the civil the criminal division. When i was white house counsel have immense respect for him but he brings with him all of the dynamic flaws of a special counsel office that justice scalia in morrison bills and described You set up a officer. Seventeen highly high-powered excellent hard-nosed prosecutors to investigate a single matter and i single a small group of people it is It is dangerous. It is something you need to pay attention to one bob. Mahler and his officer under aaron the fishbowl too and they're going to be second guessed to a fair the will of whether they investigated every facet of this that That ought to be investigated. They're going to be second guessed as to whether they've turned over every grain of sand. Not whether they turn over every rock and every pebble So it's it's it really changes the dynamic It is something that is also very difficult in a white house where you have the business of the most powerful nation. The world being conducted twenty four seven time to separate out the president seeking advice from people who who don't have a privileged relationship with who are not his personal council Is is very difficult to do. And you can in. An apparently with with a bob muller wanting to see the records from air force one When the browser apparently dictated a response relating to his son is an example of that it's really hard to maintain the the requisite discipline To keep the government business from the private business separate as i should be so you mentioned sort of obviously there wasn't a special prosecutor but but i really am quite aggressive congress and that was really interested in investigating a lot of different topics. Is that so different than something. Like a special prosecutor image. Did you feel that. That same dynamic player. Is this really something kind of different. I think this is very different. My one experience with anything like what he has described was the starr investigation of president clinton in that circumstance. I didn't represent the executive branch i represented. The congressional leadership represented dick gephardt in assembling the defense team in house and i went to the and represented the senate democratic majority during the impeachment trial so my experiences from that side of it but of course we could absorb it close quarters. I think many people could see around the country dynamic that ab describes here. There's an enormous amount of pressure on the executive branch. I can't find anything to disagreeing with. Abc's about the challenge must present to the lawyers. The one the one important legal issue. Susan is executive privilege of executive privilege visited the grand jury supreme. We know we know from espn nexen Trump made your ski got the tax right in in dicta and and usb necks and the senate watergate committee case in the dc circuit. There's a very strong suggestion that the house judiciary committee sitting and impeachment sitting in impeachment trump's executive privilege on the other hand the senate watergate committee and i worked for howard baker on his senate staff when he was vice chairman of the senate. Watergate committee lost its subpoena for the watergate ticks. So the You do have certain. Executive privilege gives the white house a a defense that you don't have in these special counsel case or impeachment case i with his ab. But i think it's interesting. You water getting i. I think the winds have really shifted against the executive. I think that's a political cultural change. I think it's very difficult to go before the court with before court and And basically have the executive argue that on a matter involving the production of evidence that may be relevant to a crime that you know the privilege in effect. Trump's i mean i could be wrong about that but i think it's very very difficult. It'll be interesting to see whether any of these issues were served up. In the current administration both view in some ways had kind of easy clients in the sense that you both served under president who were really quite quite disciplined and quite concerned about Soliciting and accepting legal advice having any precedents as a client cannot cannot be easy they must all be sort of difficult plants in their own ways is the relationship we're seeing between trump and magana trump with trump and legal counsel. Is it really so unusual or no. When you're the president of the united states and your lawyer says things that you don't agree with you don't necessarily like. Is there always sort of that. That tension did you guys have those moments of feeling like god. Being the worst president is a really tough job. I was very fortunate because the president that i served was a lawyer. Not only was he lawyers a constitutional law professor. So i didn't have to labor to translate of the concerns that i had about the law in a in a language that could understand. We often took pride and this is just the way to work out this way. I'm not suggesting that every president has to be a lawyer a much less of a constitutional law professor but we took pride in being able to draft memoranda. Say about constitutional issues. We wrote them the same way. We would have written them for colleagues at the law firm or for the general counsel of a large corporation. We didn't have to go into an explanation of what it meant that there were different standards of review rational basis versus me. All of that well known to the client. The other concern that i have that i have no way of knowing..
"bob bauer" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"The military applying on his way to pick me up so true story. You're lucky you got that call before the war went up first call. I made was to a guy who became my deputy for the iran contra investigation who is a former counsel on the senate subcommittee investigation former usa in chicago and chicago and in philadelphia And we built a separate staff of about twelve lawyers including some people from your old home at nsa Military dod I recruited we couldn't find paralegals bob so recruited archivist from the national archivist with top secret clearances because everything having to do with iran contra was so highly classified That you needed to build a staff of people with sei clearances and that was a challenge. But yes i mean. I think the the job the ordinary job of white house counsel is so important so all encompassing That the only way. I think to deal with a special council investigation or a congressional investigation is to build a separate staff so i think it's sort of an uncontroversial. Say that this is unusual president. Sort of an atypical president in terms of his instincts than impulsiveness. You look at don mcgann. Who's the current white house. Counsel is his job sort of resemble the jobs that either of you held at all or does he have sort of a fundamentally different role. How does kind of the the president's personality in the current environment change sort of what his work. I can think of lot i have. I know again from the period of time you went into the building. And i haven't discussed this with not a question. I think i could appropriately. Asked but i can take a three reasons why it would be fundamentally very different first of all. I think it's fair to say based on all the available evidence donald trump's view of the law and the rule of lawyers is different than my clients was oscar for that. And i think that's important. Secondly i think the white house counsel really does benefit enormously from an acceptance of his or her role and a process a process mindedness that supports the council in doing his or her job. The white house counsel cannot operate in a white house in which there are endless factions quarrel with each other some may be aligned with the white house some maybe suspicious of the white house counsel and no predictable procedure for the raising and addressing of legal issues. Now for all. I know that situation has changed since the chief of staff position changed since the the person holding that office changed. But i can't imagine from the client to the apparent wild west kind of character of the deliberative process that we understand to be the case in this current white house. I would imagine it'd be a very very difficult to offer the white house counsel to do i as you might expect. I agree and disagree with bob. I think the the legal issues that they're dealing with are pretty similar to those the most White white house a dealt with separation of powers issues. it's constitutional authority issues issues regarding statutory authority. I mean the travel ban that That don dhamma cancer Dealing with executive orders are some you know. Have the same legal issues in the main. I think with the daca issues that the obama white house dealt with In the main issue. What is really different is one The the president is the first to announce often probably prematurely announces a lot of initiatives. So you the white house laws to have communications discipline. You really don't have that all the time here. That's also part of Of the package the package with president trump. i vetted his vice presidential nominees. that was an interesting process. What was more one of the more interesting things and he and you see this in his presidency. He crowd sourced a lot of the process. He would go to a political rally and say who should be my vice president and people would call out names and then i would get a call that night. We'll add at susan hennessy to the list Done should have done that. I should have done that. I'm sorry I just didn't think you were thirty.
"bob bauer" Discussed on KQED Radio
"As the pattern of rain turns more active for the first week of 2021. Welcome to forum Michael Krasny from calling his election loss of fraud to bullying oppress the four years of the trump presidency of broken the mold of political and historical norms. According to law professors Jack Goldsmith and Bob Bauer, it's time for the country to reform the presidency to prevent future presidential abuses and ethical misconduct. And they lay out a plan to do just that in their new book after Trump restructuring the presidency, Bauer, a Democrat who served his White House counsel to President Obama, and Goldsmith, Republican who served as assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration. Offer a plan that they believe should enjoy bipartisan support. They join us now to talk about what can be done to restore the checks and balances that govern the presidency and let me welcome both Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith to the program. Good to have you with us. Thanks for having us Thank you very much. Yeah, and let me congratulate you, by the way to begin with this book is nothing short of a legal tome, and it's a very detailed one in a thorough one and I know you want to spark an informed debate about whether and how reform of the presidency should proceed. And you do just that in the book and Is a lot to cover. The book covers ethics that covers war powers. Pardon powers, treatment of the press vacancies and I'm not going to go on here. I'm gonna begin. Actually, if I may with you, Professor Goldsmith, and both our guests are law professors Jack Goldsmith at Harvard and Bob Bauer. And then why you I'd like to begin. But since you were a Republican who are part of the Republican administration, the Trump Administration. Has set off a lot of the warning bells that you really write about in this book, and concerns like to begin by talking about what you see is really the most urgent necessity as far as a guard rail that we've learned from the Trump presidency. Thank you. It's hard to know where to begin. There's so many, and they're two factors to consider what is the most urgent and what is achievable. Um And I think that if we were of maximizing this two vectors the most urgent thing to do. Is to address the scores of problems that arose in the relationship between the White House and the Justice Department. We have five chapters in the book on this, and there's a lot to say about it. But in general Trump violated the norms of Justice Department independence, just in an incomprehensible way norms and it worked pretty well for 50 years since Watergate. This confidence and Justice Department decision making was destroyed there all sorts of problems that there and I think that's the most urgent place where form needs to be addressed, and we will certainly talk about that. There's so much to talk about in your book, The book breathtaking changes, as you say in the book have occurred. Under the Trump Administration seeking of fire, the special counsel, which goes right to the Justice Department and making money from business and really attacking the press, and all that sort of thing, But Bob Bauer Me go to you on this all these holes in the system. I mean, they're loopholes and they're suggesting very strongly the need for guard rails as I've indicated. How did we notice this before Trump? We've seen something similar by no means the same. But you know something similar during the next administration when the certainly the guard rails that existed were smashed through fairly dramatically with the result. By the way, I might add that a number of lawyers going to Jack's point a number of war is the White House counsel. The attorney general who might have been expected to uphold the rules along that administration actually went to jail. And were involved in one way or the other in the Watergate scandal. And I think over time, some of these gorgeous guardrails have been worn of the Watergate examples. Most dramatic one. But I think in other respects over time, as presidents have sought to expand their authority and have done so for a variety of reasons, complicated reasons that we can discuss some of these restraints. Have loosened and the obvious gaps where laws and norms really needed to control have become more apparent and in our book and each chapter, we try to give an historical background that explains how it developed to the point where Donald Trump could behave in such a way that he really brought All of those gaps and weaknesses very much to attention. And I think, therefore, in his way has become the reason why a reform program is relatively urgent. Well, you mentioned Nixon and Watergate and not only Nixon, Watergate, but reforms that occurred after Vietnam and record reforms with the church committee. You say those were really all inadequate? I mean, what Trump has made us realize is not only the inadequacy but really the necessity for far more serious reforms and restructuring. Yes. I mean, I think some of those reforms did have bite some of the post Watergate reform activity. Jack and I believe were effective. Some were effective for a time and then over time, it became clear that whatever protect effectiveness they had had begin toe wear thin. Or perhaps some of the reforms were more sort of cosmetic than effective. But there were some meaningful reforms after Watergate, but we're in a different position now where we have to re evaluate what's necessary. To plug these holes and really have the presidency be a constitutionally accountable office. Powerful, strong but still constitutionally accountable. Well, it's impressive how both of you work in a bipartisan way, and I think it's safe to say the only major disagreement comes to The question of what should be done in the way of prosecution or pardoning after Trump leaves office, and maybe we can take that up. I think it's safe to say just to kind of crystallizes for listeners. Cause I know the one away in on this that Professor Bauer thinks that one should have the rule of law Primary and Professor Goldsmith seems to feel that there's a slippery slope here in a danger in presidents. Let me also go more of historical background because you bring up Hamilton in federalist, 70 and accountability and checks on him abuses of executive power, and you also bring us up to a more contemporary figure. Arthur Schlesinger and all those Constitutional presidency notions that he had about a strong presidency that you have a system of accountability and you can have a check.
Trump to meet Michigan leaders in bid to subvert election
"President trump is meeting with top Michigan state Republicans in what's likely to be a failed attempt to block Joe Biden's wind in the battleground state by then won Michigan by more than one hundred fifty four thousand votes but the state has not yet certified is victory after calling to county officials who initially refused to certify results the president invited state legislators to the White House an extraordinary move that spokeswoman Kaylee McEntee neat down played he routinely meets with lawmakers from all across the country the Biden campaigns Bob Bauer recalls that appalling and pathetic it's open attempt to intimidate election officials which Bauer says it will feel like every other trump campaign effort to subvert results of a vote the president's own election security agency said was the most secure in history the president fired its leader days later Sager mag ani Washington
Biden attorneys: Trump, allies cannot overturn Biden victory
"Elect Joe Biden say. The Trump campaign has no chance of overturning the results of the election didn't work in Georgia and Trump's trying in Michigan, where to state lawmakers were invited to the White House today. NPR's Windsor Johnson reports, the administration continues to push baseless claims of voter fraud and rigged election while blocking the transition process. In a post election legal briefing by then, Attorney Bob Bauer says President Trump and his allies are ripping away at the fabric of American democracy by refusing to accept the outcome of the election, But Donald Trump has done It is continuing to do is to denigrate and defame and deride this entire process and two alleged to the American public that what they know in their hearts is not true is somehow true and that the election was somehow illegitimate Power says the Constitution and federal law do not permit state legislators to subvert the will of the voters. His remarks come as the Trump campaign continues to pursue legal challenges and a number of swing states but have so far failed. Windsor Johnston. NPR news a rare public
"bob bauer" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030
"45. Governor Charlie Baker says the states preparing field hospitals and the current Koven 19 Spike says it's making preparations to deal with a rush of Thanksgiving travelers. President Electro Baden says President Trump's refusal to concede is an embarrassment. Biden also getting congratulations from international leaders with close ties to President Trump, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson off the UK There were few changes, says senators chose party leaders today, but it is still unclear who's going to lead the Senate, with no party having secured control off the upper chamber just yet. January. Runoff election in Georgia likely to determine control of the body. Current majority leader Mitch McConnell was asked today about the outcome of the presidential election of the challenge is taking place not unusual. Should not be alarming. At some point here, we'll find out Finally Who was certified in each of these states in the Electoral College will determine the winner and that personal sworn in on January 20th. The Biden Harris legal team is ramping up its response to the Trump administration, and the challenge is being launched. In an unusual, perhaps unprecedented move, Attorney General William Barr has instructed federal prosecutors to examine allegations of vote fraud. In states where the president has filed legal challenges to the election results. Bob Bauer, the lead attorney for the president elect, said bar is fueling what he calls fanciful or farfetched claims of the election irregularities. Our predicts that despite the investigations and lawsuits, Biden will take the oath of office on January 20th. Jim Ryan. ABC NEWS Wilmington, Delaware, one of the president elect. First Priorities will be implementing a nationwide mask mandate by working with governors if they refused. O Biden says he'll go to mayors and county leaders, Dean of the Baylor School of Medicine, Dr Peter Hotez says something needs to be done looking pretty dire. Right now. We're going to be moving up towards 200,000 new cases today. Hotez says Republican leaders need to put the pressure on governors in Middle America to get them to sign on to mass mandate, which he believes will save lives. Concerns from health officials that holiday gatherings could accelerate the spread of Corona virus on official with the American College Health Association's covert 19 task force. Travel comes with risks of exposure, and they would prefer that students stay on campus to do a virtual Thanksgiving with your family. ABC Stephanie Ramos says That warning comes amid new concerns about outbreaks at colleges thousands of Notre Dame students rushing the field Saturday after the Irish took down top rated Clemson in double overtime. A massive celebration erupting some students scene without masks, most disregarding social distancing..
Biden takes lead as Trump files lawsuits against states he falsely claims he won
"The election. It's a strategy, the president's signaled for weeks attacking the integrity of the voting process in states where trump losses could lead to him losing the race itself. The Trump campaign has sued in Pennsylvania and Michigan, largely seeking better access to watch ballots be counted. The Biden campaigns, Bob Bauer says the suits are meritless, continually alleging irregularity, failures of the system and fraud without any basis. The president's demanding the vote count stop altogether, though he cannot actually order that. Soccer Megane Washington Michigan judgment Thomas dismissed the President Trump's campaigns lawsuit in the state over the handling of absentee ballots in another battleground state won. Pennsylvania County is
Trump sues in 3 states, laying ground for contesting outcome
"As Joe Biden inches closer to winning the White House the trump campaign continues accusing Democrats of trying to steal the election without any evidence that's actually happening it's a strategy the president signaled for weeks met tacking the integrity of the voting process in states where trump losses could lead to him losing the race itself the trump campaign has sued in Pennsylvania and Michigan largely seeking better access to watch ballots be counted the Biden campaigns Bob Bauer says the suits are meritless continually alleging irregularities failures of the system and fraud a without any basis the president's demanding the vote count stop altogether so he cannot actually order that sadr make ani Washington
Biden campaign expands legal team in preparation for voting fight in November
"The New York Times reports Joe. Biden's campaign has set up a special litigation unit comprised of two former solicitors general and hundreds of lawyers in preparation for a prolonged legal battle over November's election results still with US Victoria de Frencesco Soto and David. Plus David. What. Does this tell you as opposed to simply members of the non. Pol Public. While it's a really all star group of legal talent. Now listen any presidential campaigns ready for things like recounts. Legal challenges keeping polls open when there's problems but obviously, we're facing a challenge of order magnitude greater than we've ever seen. So this group five away Bob Bauer has helped leading this been political words with him over the decades nobody better to leave. This is going to bring great intensity today it's So option one is You're dividing campaign win the vote by enough margin that no matter what Donald Trump is hailing into the wind afterwards doesn't matter but you need to be prepared for every scenario. This race could tighten certainly in the battleground states it could get very close. So unfortunately, you're you're focused on right now early voting. Monitoring what's happening with the postal service election day a shenanigans lines, but they're also clearly having to focus on the post-election period a which is we've never had that in American history. Tab a presidential campaign worried that if they win the election the opponent that they defeated one except the results. So their mandate is one that stretches I, think four past the election again, I, think the remedy to that is win enough on election night ended the days afterwards when the votes counted to make clear that Joe, Biden's won the presidency no matter what Donald Trump house about but I do think i. was glad to see the level of talent because just as the Biden campaign has to focus on GEO TV and persuasion really making sure they maximize turn out in a Latino communities. We just talked about they need to focus with the same kind of intensity on these threats to not just their campaign but our democracy. and Professor Let's talk about this guy computer. He's one of Roger Stone's boys. He was a former frequent guest on CNN. He is now the chief spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services in normal times, and we should stress this in a normal White House the White House chief of staff would have fired this guy before sun up instead these quotes stand with no action against him quote and when Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will begin. He said the drills that you've seen are nothing he added if you carry guns by Ammunition Ladies and gentlemen because it's going to be hard to get professor I. Guess I'm thinking about all the good students at the LBJ school at the University of Texas and wondering if the lesson plan for this coming fall virtual oriented person is going to be teaching about the contested election of twenty twenty, which will remain in the lesson plan for decades to come in all the worst ways. I should mention that actually I was putting together a proposal for a signature course. Entitled the politics of Fake News but you know with the peg of Gouda and let's also note that he has no health background, right? So he is in health and human services, but really no expertise whatsoever and. When I see this, I keep thinking about the deflection, the the disco ball that is Donald Trump in trying to deflect away from the reality of the seriousness of the pandemic after Bob. Woodward's interview where we had a sense that trump new but it wasn't until last night that we really saw how engaged, how how much trump really new and that the fact is that he has done nothing. So in order to compensate for that, you see this full-fledged campaign by the president and his allies would I read into that is a circling of the. Wagons because they know that the American public is concerned. This is one of the top issues for the election. So they have to keep the flexing they have keep grading an alternative narrative hoping that it sticks hoping that they can fake fully make it. But Brian, my hope is in the American people. My faith is in the American people end that they're going to read beyond the the tin foil hat mentality of you know get ready because there's going to be shooting from the left in scientists in sweatpants by the way is how he described them.
"bob bauer" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"So we just had an election the race for the presidency in two thousand twenty s already underway. I think there by my count ninety four Democrats running for president maybe one hundred ninety four by the time. We get to these time the show time. Time. What speaking about elections for moment that we're talking about which we be worried about and looking out for in terms of making sure that everyone gets to vote properly in twenty twenty some of these reforms are great that you refer to in your organization proposed. The likelihood is that can't be enacted in wouldn't be enacted in the next couple of years to what what can people do to assure themselves that things go well state-by-state into years first of all just to to the to the credit of President Obama's commissioned. Some of the reforms that we advocated actually went into an inflammation. Phase. Once the report have been filed with the president and there've been efforts on the part of localities to adopt. Some of these recommendations, for example to shorten lines and prove poll worker training and the like so we've seen some movement also the expansions I mentioned earlier of online voter registration. As for twenty twenty the public pressure on localities to account for the way, they're preparing for the election. I think is exceptionally important. I will say this that should be somewhat reassuring and reassures me when we traveled around the country for a year in preparation for the report to President Obama's part of that voting commission. The overwhelming impression we had was that. And yes, you're going to have variations and quality of performance. But election officials around the country really want to get it. Right. They really do because their income Unity's where the reputations are at stake. If something goes wrong on election day, those reputation suffer a serious blow their frequently blamed very much for matters over which they have limited control, including for example, the hand they're dealt in the quality of the equipment, they're given. And so I think that the civil rights organizations in the United States who've been so instrumental in voting rights issues, the candidates the parties, and particularly I hope you know on with. Donald trump. I don't have much hope the Republican party's contribution to the effort. They have perfected ways over the last several cycles to cooperate with election officials to enhance the quality of administration and to communicate. I think some level of confidence at the state and local level that elections are being properly prepared for is durable. You know, secure arrangement. No and partly because the president has insisted beginning in two thousand sixteen when he said if he lost he almost certainly lost because of fraud who claims it five million people voted illegally and every single last one of them in two thousand sixteen voted illegally for Hillary Clinton. Which is quite remarkable percentage. All of that is creating pressure on public confidence. And we need public visuals, including election officials, some of whom have been quite vocal on this point to send a clear cut message that just isn't true and to help counterbalance those claims Barbaro, thanks for being a pleasure. Thank you. Well, that's it for this episode of stay tuned. Thanks again to my guest. Bob, our if you like the show rate and review it on apple podcasts every positive review health new listeners. Find the show send me your questions about news and politics tweet them to me at Preet Berar with the hashtag ask pre or give me a call at six six nine two four seven seven three three eight that's six nine two four pred- or you can send an Email to stay tuned at cafe dot com. Stay tuned is presented by cafe. It's produced by cat, Erin. And the team at pineapple street media Henry, Milwaukee Joel level generalize. Berman and max linski these active producer at cafe is Tamara Seper in a cafe team. Julia Doyle, Calvin Lord, the nave Asti and Jeff Eisenman our music is by Andrew dust. I'm Preet Berrara. Stay tuned.
"bob bauer" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"Are potentially basis for impeachment. How's that? So first of all, I think we have to clear the decks buys. Hey, miss. We have got to the point where we think that the impeachment of president for just outright demagoguery and reckless behavior is somehow unthinkable because it would bring us to the brink of constitutional crisis and the only basis for impeachment is if we catch the president and committing the most serious kind of felonies, I think that's wrong. I don't think that's at all consistent with the constitutional record. If a president is a committed demagogue, and the founders were explicitly concerned about demagogues were concerned about demagogues coming into possession of the presidency and in the pursuit of ranked self interest is constantly deceiving. The public lying to the public deliver. Misrepresenting facts. So that that president introduces chaos into the body politic defies, any reasonable expectation. That citizens have about how the president will relate to them what the president will account to them for I think, that's absolutely impeachable. An example, the House Judiciary committee approved an article of impeachment of Richard Nixon for lying about whether or not he had directed an investigation of White House involvement in the Watergate burglar, he lied about that he hadn't done anything of the sort. And he said he had and that was one of the approved articles so badly public statement that was absolutely public statement. And the and there is no question, that's precedent. Now as Phil Bobbitt who wrote this excellent supplement to Charles plex famous handbook on impeachment has said when we look at the law of impeachment. It includes what past congresses have done. And so that's precedent that a president can be impeached for lies that was one lie about one investigation, which the president clearly had self interest, and it was impeachable. How many lies is Donald Trump tolls and on how many material issue house count by recently wrote a piece in which I thought that the claims that he's made about the electoral process in this country. It's corruption and that the voting systems are rigged that fraud is being committed and whatever completely inconsistent with his oath of office. It's a violation of voting rights. It's an attempt to discourage people from confidence in the electoral process. It may have the effect of discouraging people from voting, and I think that behavior in the aggregate is impeachable. I'm not unrealistic that will not be the sole basis alone for an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump's conduct. I see no reason why it wouldn't be included or considered you think impeachment is a foregone conclusion with a Democratic Congress, or do you think they will be restrained because they think it's a political non winner instead of focusing on kitchen table issues somewhere in between my confidence in this in in the likely next week of the house Nancy Pelosi in the league. Leadership team is that on the one hand they recognize that the public wants less politics and more action on the issues that they care about. And they're going to worry about a congress that has paralyzed by preoccupation with impeachment. So I think they're sensitive to that they will be sensitive to that. But on the other hand, I also think they know that they have a constitutional responsibility of evidence services of impeachable conduct to take it seriously. And I think they should I hope they do because it will be an interesting year. No matter what it's always interesting. So you spend a lot of time in your law practice on the issue of elections and voting and how voting can be fair, and as I mentioned in the intro served as co chair of the presidential commission and election administration. Why is it so hard for America in two thousand eighteen to get elections, right? Every time we have an election day, including this past one in the midterms..
"bob bauer" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"The White House counsel consistently provide the best argument, but the White House counsel has to be honest about how strong argument really is. And I think the most important thing the White House counsel has to avoid being if you will is an enabler by inflating, the president's hopes that say he has a lockdown legal argument for something. That's pretty shaky. I also want to be very clear about the difference between giving. Policy advice and bringing your knowledge of the political and legislative process into good actionable legal advice. So for example, let's assume you have three alternative courses of action. One of them is going to trigger major political sensitivities and could result in oversight hearings on the hill. Well, when you tell the president that's one of the downsides of that particular option. You're clearly giving a kind of political advice, but it's practical. It means understand there's an option here. But that option is going to have consequences, and those consequences, clearly implicate, your Legal Affairs because after all oversight. Hearing hearings involve demands for documents demands for sworn testimony in a lawyer has to be sensitive to the possibility that a course of action could create those additional problem. So I don't think a lawyer has to be blind to the environment. In fact, can't be blind to the environment in which he or she is operating. But at the end of the day, you want everybody in the room to walk out and say that White House counsel gives really good legal advice and knows which lane. He or she is operating in. But what you described is great, and I agree with it. But that's not in any statute regulation that Mel right? That's absolutely not. That's based on common sense. Yes. Practical wisdom in tradition. Yes. All of which can be thrown by the wayside if the president so chooses, right? He knows what's the next one has council to come in. I don't know anything about this gentleman. And if he's the permanent one could be employed to do all those things that you're talking about. In other words, helped the president achieve his agenda. Whether it's well-considered or not in a way that he can argue some legal basis for and and give to lawyers go on television to support. Do you think there should be some institutional way to 'cause the White House counsel in the future to be constrained in the way, you've described as opposed to being an enabler? Yes. And by neighbor, let me just explain what I mean by neighbor, which I obviously don't mean as a complement of. But somebody's professional performance. I mean somebody. Who disregards the institutional role in these the need to be responsive these institutional requirements, and who sells the president of Bill of goods on the strength of legal arguments. Contrives arguments that are not reasonable that promoted by the president will cause major issues for the presidency. And maybe even major issues for the president. I mean enabler is essentially as close to being a bad lawyer, as I know how to describe it you want someone who's independent minded as well, as of course, responsive to the requirements that the president has for for legal advice, but an enabler somebody who's tossed all that tough mindedness and independent professionalism to the wind and has just become essentially, a member of the sort of inner political circle, and that's not helpful in a lawyer in the White House. But it's a take from rancher that it's difficult to think of a way to institutionalize that president could decide to bring in somebody. I here's what I want. I was sick and tired of Don Mcgann, telling me, no, Don Mcgann, writing these CYA memo's of Don Mcgann. Not getting what I wanted to get done done. And so now I'm going to bring someone in a little bit. Some people argue is this is what's happening at the top of the Justice department. Is it your view? The Matthew Whitaker was appropriately appointed acting attorney general you mean as a prudential matter. Yeah. No, absolutely. Not a legal matter. I tend to think there are arguments that the administration can successfully muster that the appoint was a lawful. One. At least for a limited term. I'm not gonna pretend by the way. I've mastered the subject Madam ready to argue in front of this meeting of the United States. There's just a podcast, right? But I know I know that's a good point. I don't wanna I don't wanna be obsessive compulsive jurist minutes here. But what I what I what I have no doubt about is it nothing could have served the president less..
"bob bauer" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"We'll was more annoying because he knew the cases often himself and could second guess you and feel more comfortable doing. So or was it a treat that someone? You know, who is in the law was also your client, not your client. I guess, but your boss, well, I'll refrain from saying that any behavior toward me was annoying. I'll I'll I mean that in a good natured Mark clients can be annoying. Yes. I let's put it this way. It generated extra pressure on the lawyers to be very clear and precise in their legal reasoning and to be prepared to explain their legal conclusions because he could call you want it, right? So for example, we wrote memos for Brock Obama, and I'm just stating this as a matter of fact on issues like, you know, the standards of review the courts would have to pick and deciding particular constitutional issue, and we wrote it for someone who knew the difference between those standards review. Understood the difference between rational basis scrutiny and strict scrutiny now that is. Is a a pleasure because it means it's not necessary to explain to him. Why that's an important question to address. Obviously, it also means you know, that you're writing for a very sophisticated consumer of legal advice, and you wanna make sure you know, you really he's not going to take your say. So you have to be convincing in your explanations. And so that's I think an additional disciplined force for the lawyers, and it's altogether. A good thing. Part of the job of any good lawyer is to say no that goes back to the beginnings of legal tradition in every country. Did you ever have to tell Barack Obama? No because he wanted to do something policy wise or legally and have to be persuasive on that. And and have an argument about it. Or would you advise always taken immediately? I will not say it was always taken immediately. Sometimes the advice was taken under consideration. And after I had justified it, you know, after I'd answer questions about it you as an important point about the role of the White House counsel. I made a point of not giving the president policy. Vice because that wasn't in my view our role, and there were two reasons for it. First of all, it's not the area of expertise. I didn't think the president needed me to explain to him in the closing phases of health care program or the healthcare Bill lobbying. Which provisions of the needed to be tightened up on a particular question. I mean, that's just not my expertise. And why in the world would I give him that advice or for that matter even advice about how best to sell it to the congress? So we were not communication specialists, we weren't policy specialists. We were lawyers. A second reason that's really important is that if lawyers become involved in policy disputes in the west wing, then there's a good chance that they will be considerably less effective in the role as lawyers because one camp will conclude that if Bob our or some other White House counsel is taking a position on policy. Does that mean that the legal advice has been shaped to the White House counsels policy preferences, or is the White House counsel consistently being an honest broker giving the best possible judgment just about the law? And I think staying on that right side of the line as an honest legal adviser, an honest broker legal advisor is absolutely critical to the performance of the White House counsel on the question of whether the president ever questioned my legal advisement without getting into. Specifics. I would say that he was a gracious, but tough taskmaster and one had to make one case, you know, he's not an office anymore. Correct. You can dish little bit up. Well, not really I think. Okay. All right. That's fine. But it's sort of interesting what you're saying what the role is. Because there there are sort of general counsels, and special counsels and councils and other environments, depending on the circumstances who don't see their job, necessarily as being the honest broker about describing the legality and propriety of engaging in certain conduct. Whether it's the ACA or drone strikes or the appointment of an acting attorney general, but rather as council who provides the justification for the thing that the leader wants to do whether it's in the White House or anywhere else..
"bob bauer" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"But let's assume that's all squared away and their legitimate areas of inquiry and a requirement for testimony that the White House counsel by any stretch of the imagination has to give even if it's directed toward the president's conduct. I think there's no way around it. I think the White House counsel has to testify would when I was driving at is. If at the end of the day, the president believes that the testimony you're giving extraordinarily damaging to him. And you actually are of the same view sort of difficult to see how you maintain the confidential professional relationship that's necessary to sort of the president. Here's the second part of that story about Mcgann giving a lot of testimony as has been reported. It seems that he did it all without coordinating communicating particularly closely with Donald Trump's lawyers, and there was this reporting someone breathlessly in the last few months where it is suggested that the president's lawyers Giuliani and others don't really know what Don Mcgann told the special counsel, if you had been in the position of Don Mcgann, and given the testimony would have been your approach to sharing information about the questions and the answers with the lawyers were closer to the president and serving a different function for the president in the normal course, you'd expect that your lawyers would have the sort of protected communications appropriate. Protect you can cases with counsel to the president. The worst case interpretation of what we read in the presence. Humiliate is correct is a dumb again in his lawyers did not believe they could trust counsel to the president to have that information. And so they decided not. To provide it or they provided a very edited version, and that goes again to I think the dramatic professional hurdles facing a lawyer and Don mcgann's position advising president like Donald Trump. It's kind of a tight rope. Yes for him. But so what are the other explanations? As to why he wouldn't share. Could it be that? He was just not asked. I find that really hard to believe because that would seem to be find you find you find incompetence on the part of lawyers who've been hired by President Trump in the past to be inconceivable. I'll be charitable and say in you of the word incompetence will say professional shortcomings, but professionals were comes in my mind or not equivalent to malpractice and a lawyer for the president who didn't ask the lawyer to Don Mcgann for an accounting of the scope of the testimony, and the basic gist of the testimony would be I think going beyond simply exhibiting, personal or professional shortcomings. I mean that would be a remarkable omission. And that's why I don't know whether it happened. Right. So just to play on for second. If you assume that the questions were asked, and you assume that the reporting otherwise it's corrected a lot of stuff wasn't revealed. So the lawyer for the president says, hey, Don, how long did testify for in your seventeen hours of testimony? Would you tell them? And when Don Mcgann comes back and says, I told them these three things and it takes a minute to describe doesn't the lawyer for the president. Then say, I think you're leaving some things out. You should tell us more. I still see how that how that works out. I agree. I mean, I I think if it took three minutes for Dom against lawyer to explain, you know, seventeen hours of testimony, my ten I would be up, and I'd wonder what I wasn't being told, and, you know, again, better than I do that the details and the texture of the testimony is really all critical to understanding the import of that testimony for the president. Do you find it to another Don Mcgann for a couple more minutes? This newspaper report in the New York Times that is another example of what you mentioned before about Donald Trump asking again to see about firing Muller. It was reported that the president told on began to tell the Justice department to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton. And Jim Komi to me that seems like a different level of outrageous bit of the part of the president something we shouldn't see in this country have a number of questions about that. But let me just ask you the softball. What was your reaction to that? That Trump asked Mcgann GRA?.
"bob bauer" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"I currently am at flood who you don't hear a lot about or from. But also Rudy Giuliani and others. How are they supposed to interact with each other and keep separation from each other and serve their particular roles correctly. It's tricky, obviously, the president operates in the west wing and some of the demands that the president may for example encounter from the office of the special counsel calls for officials to give testimony calls for potentially official documents or an accounting of official actions to be given. And so the White House counsel becomes involved in thinking, for example, questions of executive privilege. Wjr way. And that's all proper. So for example. Correct. It is not automats the case that you have a special counsel who's investigating. You know, various things that might affect the White House that all of a sudden the president has to get a personal lawyer. It's perfectly appropriate for the White House counsel. For example, you know, I helped to investigate the department of Justice when I worked in the Senate, and and when I worked for Senator Schumer, and it was a bipartisan investigation and the staffers and the senators would go to the White House, and we would haggle about executive privilege in about documents, and we dealt with Fred fielding, the former White House counsel for George W Bush. There was no other lawyer that was proper right, correct? There are circumstances in which an investigation takes place. Here's an example, where their questions necessarily bear on the way that the office was conducted like an inquiry into obstruction of Justice and the White House counsel is going to end up being involved in receiving demands for information from government officials documents from the government that bear on the investigation to that particular allegation. Listen now that president if the president himself is potentially a subject or target of an obstruction inquiry is going to require personal representations. So then the question is how did lines can be kept get kept straight. That is a role the Taikang played at one point in the Trump White House, it appears that role has now come to Amit flood that they operate as government employees on personal lawyers. But they're also not in the White House counsel is sort of it's an odd hybrid is an odd hybrid and their role is to try to make sure in these special circumstances that the personal as well as the official or the complex entanglement of the personal and the official are in practice addressed appropriately. So Don Mcgann was the first White House counsel for President Trump. Did you know him personally? I do do you have an opinion of how he did his job. Yes. I have an opinion on how somebody could make the best case for Don Mcgann, having served this particular president who was obviously hard on the legal furniture. Treated him like furniture, like maybe a pet would treat the Furniture's. Yes. And I think that Don Mcgann, and the people who support Tom again in particular, the people in the congress who have been close to Dhamma Guinea has a very well known strong relationship with the Republican leadership and particularly in the Senate will say the Don Mcgann made the most of a very very difficult situation. He leaves office having clearly laid out there for the world to know when I think this all came out of the west wing, generally that he was focused on judicial nominations and deregulation, which are two successes for this administration from their perspective from their perspective to successes particularly on judicial nominations, including two supreme court confirmations last of losing. Bruiser bruiser very difficult, but both of them both of those nominees are now sitting on the supreme court. And of course, they've had tremendous success in placing judges and district courts and court of appeals around the country. And then whatever he contributed to the deregulatory effort on Russia. When all is said and done the press, and this is of course, all what we know from general reporting suggests that Don Mcgann made an effort to basically hold the line against the president's complete misunderstanding of what he was committed to his own self defense. So the president apparently at one point one, Don Mcgann pressure, Then-attorney general Jeff Sessions for the firing of a Bob Muller. Don, Mcgann, refused to be a party to that..
"bob bauer" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"And this is after lunch on Tuesday there a report from one news outlet, the guardian that Paul Manafort in the spring of two thousand sixteen met with Julian Assange, that's pretty sensational stuff. If that is true because as you remember Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks was responsible for leaking all sorts of damaging harmful internal emails of the Clinton team and the Clinton campaign, and this whole exercise has been about what collusion, and whether or not people from the Trump campaign sort of conspired with other people, and and people who were foreign to damage the Clinton campaign in clearly the WikiLeaks, very scheduled very organized, very intentional leaks of hacked, emails, and stolen. Emails was damaging to that campaign. So what role Paul Manafort had in that? And how much of that was being coordinated by Donald Trump or others is of course of central importance. My caution though is at the time of this taping. I haven't seen any other news outlet confirm. It it seems like a big deal. And I'm just I'm just at this moment that can be proven wrong at any any minute. A little skeptical of that reporting this next question comes in the form of a tweet also from mad Pinto who says here's my question. The president has submitted his answers to special counsel Muller now, but I'd like to know was done under oath. Thanks pre. Hashtag asprey. So this is a recurring question about the way in which people provide information to law enforcement officials is under oath is it under penalty perjury. Is there a possible crime? If you lie my suspicion is we haven't seen the document is that it's very clear, and it's been made very clear to the lawyers that the that the answers that Donald Trump is giving that he adopts them. And that if they are materialize in them, he could be prosecuted this national eighteen USC one thousand one which is the statute we've been talking about a lot over. In the course of the last year and a half because it's the lying to law enforcement statute that has been used time and time again, whether or not there was a before oath. Probably not. Hey, my name is Michael. I'm calling from Saratoga springs, New York and map Whitaker's see the names of people in a sealed indictment is illegal for him to hear those with the president. And does he know everything that Muller knows? So those are my three questions. Thanks very much. Love the show. Thanks, michael. Good question. So if he is the appropriate supervisor and overseer of the Muller investigation, and he has taken the place of rod Rosenstein, and Bob Muller is not fully independent. According to the special counsel regulation. He must report to someone. And if that person is now Matt Whitaker, which it seems like it is then Matt Whitaker can ask for any information that he wants the supervisor he can ask to see sealed indictments. He can see the names he can ask for briefings on what the witnesses have been saying. So far, there's interesting give and take in. Supervisor relationship, including when I was he was attorney, and there was an attorney general about how much information you share? I don't think the Bob Muller and his team would be playing any of those kinds of games. We've had this debate over the last couple of weeks, that's sort of interesting on the ground that maybe Bob Muller would refuse to share certain kinds of information or refuse some direct orders from Whitaker because he's not duly appointed. And there are various lawsuits trying to determine whether or not met Whitaker is properly appointed under various statutes and also the constitution. It seems unlikely the Bob Muller would play that kind of game. And I think he would be forthcoming and forthright. If these questions are asked, but about all of that is documented they're all keeping track of what they're telling Whittaker to see if something comes out in the news, otherwise because so far, I think it's been pretty airtight and ask you a question of whether or not Matt Whitaker can get the information from Muller, and then share them with the president with respect to sealed indictment and things that are part of grand jury proceedings, which is he'll diving would be binding. There's a very good argument. That would be breaking the law and Matt Whitaker, even though. Some people have described him as not being the sharpest knife in the drawer is still a professional lawyer..
"bob bauer" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"And to argue that the lies that Bob Muller is stating that he told or overstated or incorrect, but it doesn't look very good for Paul Manafort at all. So the implications for Paul Manafort terrible terrible terrible in terms of his freedom. The implications for Bob Muller, as I've said if Manafort had useful information that could have been used. That's never gonna see the light of day in a courtroom. They have made a determination that they can't ask a jury to believe anything Pullman Ford says after repeated lies, he's useless as a witness the implications for Trump are I guess two fold one. He's. A little bit off the hook to the extent. This is all speculative. But to the extent that Manafort had information that was incriminating of the president. At least I don't Trump knows that Manafort will not be testifying about that publicly in a court, even if he gave some evidence to the prosecutors that they can use and the second implication is what does Donald Trump do with respect to the big word pardon. I don't know some people have speculated that Paul Manafort, maybe engaged in this conduct because he had the promise of apart. That makes no sense to me. There are other ways to sort of secure your pardon in not implode before court that's going to be sentencing you in a few weeks. So I I don't know that any arrangement has been made. I think in some ways Donald Trump who's a pre self-interested guy. Maybe he wants to do the guy favor on the other hand. Maybe he doesn't need to in isn't need to suffer the political fallout from pardoning him last point that occurs to me as I'm speaking this allowed, and I haven't thought too deeply about it yet is, you know, every time there's talk about pardoning somebody who's involved in the Muller investigation. People. Say will is that evidence of obstruction? Well, I gotta tell you. There's a decent argument for that. Depending on the timing of the pardon and on the intention behind the pardon the motive for it. But in this case after we now know that the prosecution wants nothing to do with Paul Manafort any longer if Donald Trump were in a month going to pardon Paul Manafort, it's a much more difficult argument to make that constitutes any Evans of obstruction. So when I'm really looking forward to is the promised document mothers team said the government will file a detail. Sentencing. Submission to the probation department in the court in advance of sensing that sets forth, the nature of the defendants crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement here in. I'm very interested to read that there's a possibility that that document will not immediately become public, and maybe filed under seal or portions of it filed under seal if the lies would somehow if publicly disclosed undermine pending parts of their investigation. But you know, there's a presumption of having court documents not be filed under seal you have to have good cause for putting it under seal in that seal doesn't last forever. So at some point if not in a few weeks, but eventually will get to see and probably talk about all the lies upon metaphor told after he was given the gift of cooperation. One less thing at the time of this taping..
"bob bauer" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"We my hope. You don't live up to your last name. You ask at pre Perahera hashtag ask Preet Manafort what in the living. Hell has he done that say there are a lot of questions about Paul Manafort this week, and you ask the most succinct version with the proper tone? But obviously the question you're asking rises from the news in the last day that Paul Manafort who sought to cooperate with the government had his cooperation agreement declared null and void by the government. And by government, I mean special counsel Bob Muller, because they claim in a three page memo to the court has said that subsequent to pleading guilty and agreeing to cooperate Paul Manafort lied and not only lied one time. But according to the document that they put into the court said lied on a variety of matters. We won't know exactly what the extent of that is yet because they haven't filed a full. Sentencing memorandum. But said basically, this Kylie I'd light again, and again on a number of things and says there's no need to postpone his sensing any longer. So you know, what to make what to make of all of that? So just a brief recap. Paul Manafort was handpicked by candidate Trump in the spring of two thousand sixteen to be his campaign chair at some point thereafter, one special counsel Muller began looking at Paul manafort's activities and financial dealings ended up lodging not one but two indictments against him. One in the eastern district of Virginia in one of the district of Columbia because Paul manafort's lawyers wouldn't agree to waive venue to the both cases could be brought in the same place. And you'll remember that during the pendants HIV that case Paul Manafort among other things lied about the conditions of confinement to get better confinement engaged in witness, tampering decide to go ahead to trial in the first case got convicted on a number of counts dot better of his decision to defend himself in court and rather than face the second trial, decide to plead guilty and consented to cooperate. And then even after that lied, and then was given a great gift, and the gift is a letter that would advocate for leniency. By the government, if he agreed to cooperate and really had only one obligated at that point notwithstanding his crimes notwithstanding the cover up notwithstanding. Having been convicted notwithstanding having put the government to it's proof. And the only thing he had to do was tell the truth, and it seems that for a guy like Paul Manafort that was exceedingly difficult and also arrogant having seen how well the by mother team did at trial and how much Evans they adduced as you can see from the indictments themselves. The idea that this guy thought he could get away with telling what must have been clear lies is astonishing to me, you know, having dealt with a lot of criminal defendants this level of brazenness by somebody who's educated, and smart and privileged and money is is not unheard of. But it's pretty unusual, particularly when the whole world has been watching. So the other interesting thing, I will say from the very short memorandum is how little defense his lawyers make of it. So usually, it's the case. If you object to the government's characterization of your lying, and the government is saying, they're ripping up the cooperation agreement, and they're not going to give you the benefit of advocating to the judge for leniency for you ordinarily would expect his lawyers to be raising. Holy hell and to be saying you have it wrong. Saying look my guy upheld his end of the bargain. He gave you information. It was substantial it assisted you. And it was true. And you better not renege on your end of the bargain. And instead they have very lukewarm couple of paragraphs in this joint memo's admitted to the court. Here's how Paul manafort's council characterize the disagreement, quote after signing the plea agreement Manafort met with the government on numerous occasions and answer the government's questions Manafort has provided information to the government in an effort to live up to his cooperation obligations. Here's a third sense. He believes he has provided truthful information and does not agree with the government's characterization or that has breached the agreement, but then they say four cents. Given the conflict in the party's positions. There is no reason to delay the sentencing here in and the asks the court to set a sentencing date in this matter..
"bob bauer" Discussed on The Dan Bongino Show
"The disciples who experienced the resurrection of jesus christ were brutally martyred you think they did that on letting knew the story they were telling was entirely nonsensical hey we're just making this up but let me get crucified upside down for it doesn't make sense i'm telling you i'm not comparing myself to you pas pleased i'm just any chance i get to spread the word i try so i mean it's a lot to me i hope you understand i'm putting my entire shows credit this is my livelihood my family's livelihood on the line telling you there are things going on behind the scenes there are very serious investigations going on into people in the obama administration they know it there is a horse trade likely going on right now listen to yesterday's show obama's former white house lawyer greg craig mysteriously resigns from skadden the same law firm under investigation by muller for port they did for trump's campaign manager paul manafort before he joined the campaign that was obama's white house lawyer he just resigned from skadden bob bauer obama's other white house lawyer just resigned from perkins kui bob bauer who was that the legal counsel for obama for america that took a seven hundred thousand dollar payment they paid the perkins coup by the way the same law firm that paid fusion gps and christopher steele for the fake russian information bob bauer just left perkins coup katherine ruml or obama's lawyer another day he had three of these craig bauer catherine ramblers white house counsel rum rumours is representing he's she's obama's fixer she was involved in all of the major scandals in the obama administration that's the fixer irs benghazi look it up yourself i did a whole show on it she's representing a source in the muller campaign muller's a bad guy i don't think ballers a good guy in this i mean investigative ly i think muller is purely a smoke screen at this point but i believe he's uncovered so much information about the obama team's involvement that there is some kind of a horse trade going on and that's why these people are leaving potentially leaving these law firms there's too much liability.
"bob bauer" Discussed on The Dan Bongino Show
"But folks keep in mind when i tell you let me just reverse the first second before i move on and get the step to of this rum lur kathy ruml is obama's lawyer in the white house she's the fixer for obama i'm gonna lay that out for you in a second i'm trying to tell you that the whole muller investigation is a fix to keep your attention on trump to hide all of the obama scandals rum lur was the fixer in the white house rum ler replace bob bauer who was the white house lawyer for obama before her who went over to perkins kui who was hired to set up trump who by the way replaced greg craig who was a lawyer with expertise and impeachment hearings who worked with a guy who was in the trump orbit who had worked with pro russian efforts already this is my man that's what we need thank you there we go that's cuba's was the fixer she was the fixer the whole time now what else was ramler involvement sorry so many shereen chat some of them by the way this is going to be do stories the daily caller story by sydney powell all this would be in the show notes lined out for you don't miss the show notes today okay that's why i keep jobs i i keep having to tell joe to stop we're actually splicing this up a bit to make it cleaner for you because i don't wanna bounce around too much.
"bob bauer" Discussed on The Dan Bongino Show
"Now before i get to some of the stuff rum ler was involved in that i absolutely believe is being covered up in an effort to keep this investigation focused on trump for a minute role with me here who did catherine ramleh replace in that position as white house counsel katherine ramler replaced bob bauer as obama's lawyer all right where did bob bauer go joe after he left from being obama's lawyer replaced by rumble or who's a friend muller and weisman who are now investigating remember you wouldn't because i didn't talk about it before wasn't said bob our left to go work for perkins cooley oh perkins can we oh you mean a law firm that hired fusion gps to go investigate trump you may know law firm that hired fusion gps yeah yeah the law firm that hired fusion gps at hired christopher steele that fabricated the dossier that was used to spy on trump oh that's where bob our would rumours predecessor was over a perkins cooing the same law firm that was paid by organizing for america obama's now campaign arm which was turned into organizing for america was obama for america that paid perkins gooey hundreds of thousands of dollars the same law firm the same law firm that paid fusion gps was paid by the clintons that dig up dirt on trump so that's where ramler that's where her predecessor was i'm sure there's no relationship there joe at all nothing to see here no nothing to see here folks move along.
"bob bauer" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Of executive privilege visit the grand jury supreme that we know we know from usb mexico uh does not trump manger war ski got to touch right in in dicta in and usb next and in the senate watergate committee occasion the dc circuit uh there's a very strong suggestion that the house judiciary committee sitting in impeachment sitting in impeachment trump's executive privilege on the other hand the senate watergate committee and i worked for howard baker on his senate staff when he was vice chairman of the senate watergate committee launched its subpoena for the watergate tapes so the you do have certain executive privilege gives the white house a um a defence that you don't have any special council or in the beechman i don't know whether you agree with his ab but i think the it's interesting you mentioned the watergate experts i think the winds of really shifted against the executive i think that's the political cultural change i think it's very difficult to go before the court with before court and i've and basically have the executive argue that on a matter involving the production of evidence that may be relevant to a crime that you know the privilege in effect trump's i mean i i could be wrong about that but i think it is very very difficult it'll be interesting to see whether any of these issues disturbed up in the current administration so both of you and in some ways had kind of easy clients in the sense that you built served under presidents who were.