20 Episode results for "Deputy Attorney General"

Monday 24 September

Monocle 24: Midori House

31:50 min | 2 years ago

Monday 24 September

"You're listening to majority house first broadcast on the twenty. Fourth of September twenty eighteen on monocle twenty four. Live from London. This is Madari house. I'm Daniel Bauge on today's show. Rod Rosenstein is out the US deputy attorney general was reported to have discussed invoking the twenty fifth amendment in an aim to remove the president, why his exit could have enormous consequences for the Russia investigation. Meanwhile, another woman comes forward with an allegation of sexual misconduct related to Brett cabinet as the Democrats close in on the GOP's pick for the US supreme court. There are a lot of issues around breath that involving what was happening in highschool, etcetera. But even before all of this happened, he had credibility issues in his testimony, three days of testimony. So what does it all mean for the legitimacy of the US top court? I'll ask my guests Juliette foster and Carlo venero plus Donald Trump gets sent for takeoff at the United Nations. Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his. Regime, the United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary. We'll also look at how Thailand is responding to a rise in anti-government graffiti and ask if political ads on television still work. That's all ahead on Midori house starting now. So welcome to Midori house. My guest today, our journalist and broadcaster Juliette foster and Carlo Manera senior teaching fellow in South East Asian politics at. So as welcome both to the program, we'll get to the US supreme court in a moment. But first news broke a short time ago that rod Rosenstein the American deputy attorney general is expected to leave his post. The reports come just days after it was revealed. He discussed secretly recording Donald Trump and invoking the twenty fifth amendment, which would remove the president from office or could Mr. Rosenstein is the top Justice department official overseeing the special counsel investigation and has long been a defender of Robert Muller, but has also been in the crosshairs of the president for what Trump calls a witch hunt. It's unclear whether he will resign, but it's expected. He could be leaving that post regarding the Russia investigation. Perhaps Juliette will start with you. This isn't all good news for Mr. Trump visit if he's l.. Well, yeah, not necessarily because look at the end of the day, you can writes, Mr. Trump has actually condemn. Named the Muthu investigation as a witch hunt and that it's motivated by politics. Even though mullahs himself is a Republicans, let don't quite know how you can square those ends. But if he he will. He will hope the term Rosenstein successor will use his authority to close this down. But if he does closed on the murder inquiry, then it will feed the conspiracy will say, well, maybe mood a very close to the truth, and that's why you'll shutting it down and also as well Mr. Rosenstein successor. He was in my opinion, legal experts. He was happy to have some very good grounds to shut it down. If he's actually coming to some kind of pressure then doesn't that cheapen the value of his office or the the is ability to be objective and also as well. This is an administration which has got more leaks coming out of it, a burst pipe releases water. If this, if this an inquiry wash shutdown, my fairy is that there are people who spent a lot of time and energy trying to excavate things, and they will come to the conclusion. We'll, you know what you can't sign. It's the truth, and perhaps they'll be. Yet even more leaks into the public domain. So perhaps the best thing to do is just to let Mr. Moore and his team get on with it and write any consequences if indeed there already. Yeah, if there is pressure from the White House here, it's probably a fine line Carlo for the president. If he were to replace Rosenstein, it could be seen as obstruction of Justice, same too. If he fills the role was someone seen as more favor- favorable or that could have influence over Muller himself. So no matter, it's a tough balance for the president. Is it none? It's a tough balance, but I think that this has been a department of Justice that he simply cannot figure out how to break up or how to reduce its influence over the Muller investigation. But also the fact that it's a kind of I'm sure Trump sees the department of Justice currently as this outpost of intransigence within his own administration. And Rosenstein is interesting if he does actually resign and if his resignation is accepted, this is an interesting. He's an interesting figure to go first. Because this doesn't involve Trump removing Jeff Sessions, which obviously would be a huge political costs and it's not an end to the Muller investigation outright. It's perhaps politically the only a workable solution for Trump at this stage. What I was interested in is that if he is actually the source of the rumors that officials were trying to, we're going to thinking about using the twenty fifth amendment right to Trump, then I think that for conservatives this might actually be a little bit, you know, they can put their mind at ease slightly because what would be worse if they've found out that someone very, very close to the president was having that type of discussions. But for Rosenstein who is an enemy of the president, this it makes sense and for for people in the conservative media, this is something that they could simply just brush off now. Rosenstein will sell that piece in the new. He's been rumbled. But again, if he does leave of his own a cold or if indeed Mr. Trump pushes him out, when can we expect the book because quite a few books written about the Trump presidency by those on the inside and those on the outside, or indeed, those who got a little bit too up front and personal for their own good. I think we know who I'm referring to that. In all of this. Does anyone have a tougher job than Rosenstein? He sits between the White House and the special counsel and his superior Jeff Sessions. As we mentioned, recused himself. What do you think of that Julius. I, it is a tough job, but I come back to what I've said before and in many ways, Jeff Jeff Sessions is in that position because look Jeff Sessions recused himself from overseeing the mother investigation because he had he had links or had contact with some of the Russians who have been named with this. So it was a logical thing to do. He had to stand back. He was doing the right thing. Of course, Mr. Trump doesn't see this because far as he's concerned, he feels that Jeff Sessions should behave as if he is his own personal lawyer. I think a lot of that mentality has perhaps spilt over into the way that he has dealt with rod Rosenstein. And again, it's this schizoid approach when sessions and Rosenstein were appointed. We couldn't get enough about the praises. The president was heaping on them that they were good men, and they were great for the job. And then of course, when they do their job, they're actually criticized damned. If you do damned, if you don't, and the problem. Lies with the president. He has to. He has to remember that these this area that the Justice department is a department which is which belongs to the government. It is not Mr. Trump's personal fiefdom the people who work there are not there to serve Donald Trump. That, if that makes sense. Certainly on this is a story that we'll continue to follow here on monocle twenty-four. We don't have the full details, but it's reported that rod Rosenstein will be leaving his post as deputy attorney general staying in the United States. I want to move on now to the cavenaugh hearing that will be coming up the woman who has accused judge Pratt com. Brett cabin of sexual assault has agreed to testify at the Senate Judiciary committee this coming Thursday. However, Donald Trump's pick for this pre court may yet face another political, firestorm. Just as an agreement was reached with Christine blazey. Ford reports of another accusation of salt were reported by the New Yorker magazine that was yesterday the New Yorker article by Ronin Farrow and Jane Mayer. Two of the magazines. Most revered journalists recounted allegations by a woman named Deborah Ramirez. She described events at a dormitory dormitory party back at Yale in around nineteen eighty three. This would be interesting the same year as the other accusations. She also wants the f. b. i. to investigate any chance they will Carl. I think right now it's been said that the FBI will not investigate these matters. Donald Trump in trying to brush this off said that why didn't they go back to the FBI actually went into these women go to the FBI to begin with, which of course is not what they would have done that would have gone to the police. And I think that this is, you know, I if I'm not mistaken, I'm not. I don't think the need a hill when Anita hill came up with her allegations that that was investigated by the FBI. So I'm not sure why I'm not sure why the FBI is being referenced in this way. Of course, the the with regards to the the court's legitimacy. It is a very distressing that this is the same type of dynamic that we went through over what is it three decades ago now. And I, I have to say that I don't think that the court's legitimacy was damaged by the Anita hill hearings. A lot of other things were damaged by the. The Nida hill hearings. And of course, Clarence Thomas. If you're on the left, Clarence Thomas became a someone who voted constantly on idiological grounds, and I think a decade after his appointment people unfortunately, maybe are not thinking about what Anita hill went through but are about that type of political. She says. Now for various reasons that she was treated to don't mistreat it. As many would say, there have been suggestions. Republicans may arrange for Thursday's testimony by Christine blazey Ford to be chaired by female lawyers rather than all male panel of senators that they do have. Is there any chance Julia, this is going to give it a better? Look, I doubt very much because they will first of all, look at the backdrop against which this has arisen eighties may to. And the whole point about the metoo movement was that it wasn't just encouraging women who in the film industry to come forward and talk about inappropriate behavior of men who frankly should have known better. It then rolled out and said, look, it doesn't matter where the men are. It doesn't matter if you're working in a shop. It doesn't matter if you're working the legal department. It doesn't matter where this would have behavior has occurred. These allegations, it needs to be combed out. And I personally feel that if you have women who will be there, interrogating the accuser, it's a very cynical move under. It just it's just a blatant attempt to dining that little bit of window dressing, quite frankly to somehow imply. But look, we take these things very, very seriously mean you should. They should tight them seriously anyway. Yeah, they all very serious matter if they were made. If if the instance they referred to happened thirty odd years ago, they still happened on there. Real questions about the climate that existed when these these, this is this incident allegedly occurred. That's how the accused it didn't feel that she could go forward and report it. So she sat on it for all of these years. And it took three decades also full a movement light me to say, look, it doesn't matter when these things occurred coming out and talk about it. So putting win women there to to somehow sanitize proceedings. No, it is just window-dressing. And I think that the accuser herself would see through that as most people would Carlo you're nodding your head in agreement there. Just think that if you have a group of eleven men who are supposed to be there. Members of congress, there's supposed to be national leaders and they do not feel confident in their ability to talk about to talk to a women about what has happened to her, and that somehow they don't feel that they could be fair enough demonstrates at total lack of responsibility of pl- power in this situation. And I mean, I know why they're doing it because they're trying to get out of a situation in which either. Either in the worst case scenario that one of them says, something that they shouldn't or in the best case scenario that they come off as unfair somehow because of the political nature of the committee. But I just think the the last thing in the context of me to that that men want to be doing is the demonstrate the women that they simply can't talk about these issues publicly dump it on the woman. Basically. Because they can talk about these things better than men, which is it's, it's lazy. Okay. The fact to the matter is that, yes, we've had these accusations levelled against the candidate for the supreme court, but let's be grown up about this. They will be other men seeking prominent positions in this administration or indeed in the others to follow. And some of them will will be dealt by accusations about things that they did in the very distant past or they recent pulsed these these issues will still have to be confronted. You can't people dumping it on the woman. Every time it occurs a k. this is something which people have to get used to talking about and dealing with, but simply offloading onto somebody else that's lazy. We've talked about the legitimacy of the court there and and talked about the politics of of overarching politics of this whole scenario. Is there anything here Carlo that's not wholly partisan the Republicans. Obviously, trying to poke holes in this testimony and the Democrats trying to legitimize it as as valid, but it's. It's, it's all politics isn't it? I think that's absolutely correct. It's it is. It's one of those sad things about this situation and that again, what really strikes me is the what kind of a repeat this is too when Nita hill, when that was also politicized in the same way, in terms of the the way in which the case will affect the legitimacy of the spring court more generally, I think that the supreme court is a very complex. This is gonna sound perhaps as possibly slightly elitist or strange, but the supreme court has very complex. The federal judiciary is a very complex system, and I think that Americans view the court threw a very limited number of cases, for instance, Roe v Wade. And they see that for the first time in a very, very long time that there may be a solid majority on the court, and that is a product of and Brandon Bartell in the in the Washington Post wrote a very good article on this. That's a product of two things. One is that from Bill Clinton onward. The president's only began to pick appointee only began to appoint justices with their own ideological affiliation or ideological sensibilities that didn't happen before Bill Clinton. And the second thing is the issues related to the super majority in the Senate that's going to result in a more polarized court. And that I think is that could have some affect on the way which Americans see it. Although since the nineteen seventies Americans, forty percent of Americans think that the supreme court has just the right amount of ideological diversity on it. So as well. Because you pay their on Roe versus Wade, which was a landmark abortion ruling and the well the there are many conservatives both in inside politics now side who favor Br, Br, bright, taverna, as as a new supreme court judge because of his conservative position. And this hope this aspirated that Roe versus Wade would be overturned. And to me, I mean, in the current. Cycle in which we're living the current political cycle, you cannot ruin out the impossible to see. So it would be rather disturbing if you had a very conservative supreme court panel where you've had, let's say, for argument's sake, the break cabinet is selected, but a man who's at the center of advocacy of of questions about his sexual conduct. You've had Clarence Brown who was at the central. These sexual allegations backed by a president who is himself at the center of allegations of sexual harassment, actually making a judgment over a very pivotal piece of legislation which would affect the facility rights of women. Basically the birth control rights of women. There's something cruelly. Ironic about that very well said indeed. And we look forward to seeing how this plays out for the rest of this week stateside staying in the US though much of the press, they're paying not paying as much attention to what will be happening at the UN general assembly coming up as you embraces for the arrival of a US president who as recently as Sunday was criticizing. The organization observers will be considering how effective the international body might be in the absence of an effective American president will the international community be taking the US seriously this time at all. Do you think Juliet. When I guess if you're a tight in the Wolfson it came might say, there's absolutely no reason why we should be. You can say, Americans should be taken seriously, I, it is fascinating. Isn't it? That on the one hundred? These domestic things which are happening in in Donald Trump's immediate backyard and the the security of the UN German assembly Security Council this happenings which go on there, which affect all of us when not really taking much notice of it is with the exception of course of this fine program, but will the US be taken seriously? Oh, perhaps that's no, I wouldn't quite look at it in those terms. For me, the the big question is will Donald Trump's trail script because with the midterms all coming up and I would not be at all surprised if we hear the expression, crooked, Hillary looker up somehow make it into the thing. Chamula assembly Orem. I'm a staple genius in relations to North Korea than anything else that you that you choose to throw him because let's face it. The lexicon is overstuffed that we Trump phrases, but you you do raise a very valid point of about America's position in this. And the reason why you we, of course, people are wondering whether America should be taken seriously is because of the way that traditional alliance is had. We not pending when Donald Trump goes into that chamber, even if he can't see it, it is pretty evident that the older line says have shifted. You know that you had countries like Canada, Japan blocks, like the European Union, they would be firmly behind the United States, but now they've got every reason if you like to sort of keep their distance. And of course, the Russians and the Chinese. They're loving this because they actually find that they've got some common ground with the Europeans and the Japanese, the Canadians, and I'm not really sure it's Donald Trump conceives because he would say, well, you know, these old old is need to be appended. Anyway, they've been due for an overhaul for some time, but all they really give their other dramas which are happening in the world stage, the Syria crisis has not been resolved. Of course, the Russians are heavily involved in that they are in the driving seat. Nobody's not awesome souls war. Is it healthy to have a Syria, which is still led by Bashar Al Assad at a time when the country has been decimated and the hatred, the anger towards him hasn't gone away tool. Let's not forget, of course that you've got Saudi Arabia very resurgent Saudi Arabia because they have the blatant support of the Americans feeling them. And of course Israel fills emboldened because again, Donald Trump has shifted the embassy to Jerusalem. He's upended the traditional policy strategy towards the Middle East solving the crisis between the Israelis and the Palestinians, this no room. Now, for the two state solution, he's made it perfectly clear is dead. I'm working with the Israelis. I bet Benyamin Netanyahu Trump. You know, we heard the clip off the off of of Trump blasting Kim Jong. Last year will spend much of this year according adversaries, unlike the past year, his cozy relationship with dictators creates a bit more of a sticky situation at the UN doesn't that Carlo it does. I think in in terms of the antipathy that the current administration has for the UN and also some of Donald Trump's very clear public statements about the United Nations. Not doing anything problems, I think is important for us to recognize that. Perhaps one of th that we have to recognize that some of the things that Donald Trump does not novel. So there's a very healthy tradition over the last thirty years, at least since Reagan Reagan administration of conservative administrations in the United States, bashing, the United Nations. And in fact, the common denominator here between the Bush administration. The second Bush administration and Trump is John Bolton, right? And so John Bolton actually is probably fueling Trump's rate. Against the United Nations. Bolton himself was in the very similar position that Nikki Haley was in in terms of being a ambassador to the United nation who doesn't believe at the United Nations should exist as a prominent institution. And so this is it makes it makes sense. I also think that in this was a our conversations based on us CNN editorial. And I think that that aditorial also kind of gets it wrong that this is not this anger against the United Nations is not novel to Donald Trump. It makes sense for us to include it into in all of the other ways that he's tried to rearrange up end as you said traditional alliances. But at the same at the same time, we, we can think of many, many votes on Palestine where the United States the United States and Israel almost alone in terms of these outcomes. So I think that John Bolton is getting his way he has a second shot at this to to try to stabilize the America's relationship with the United Nations. As much as possible. And at least at this stage we haven't gotten to the point where we're, we're in the Reagan administration where we're withholding the United States of withholding funny all fully. The the, the perspective towards the the, the the, the United Nations because I think it was during the. The second Gulf was attempt Donald Rumsfeld and George and George W Bush expressed this frustration with the United Nations because it was very political because the the council will split about backing this War. I think it was Rumsfeld said, well, look, you know, maybe the thing to do is just to get rid of the that the United Nations because as a body, it is pulsed. It's best and we don't need it. It is not fit for purpose in the twentieth century as. Again, if you're absolutely correct. What we're seeing perhaps is an extension of that point of units gains of a bit more traction because you've got the ideal figurehead in front of you in other words, Donald Trump to to actually, if if he can't all their authors around him, who will do that. But clearly he backs the sentiment. You are listening to Midori house here with me. Daniel Bates Juliette foster and Carlo, but Noura I wanna drag us out of the US now and tickets. Around the globe to Thailand. It would usually take more than his fray Ken to rattle a team of powerful middle military chiefs. But in Thailand, even the suggestion of political satire can come with serious consequences. The artist known as headache, however, is remaining defiant. His stencil art around Bangkok regularly takes aim at the country's most powerful leaders such as the depiction of Thailand's hunter, chief as a lucky cat with one paw raised ready to rake in the cash. So Carla, why is headache been able to get away with this first off? Well, it's very interesting to see if he'll be able to get away with this wave of international publicity isolated because this this piece was covered across the region, and you know has been is being picked. We're talking about it right now. He is hit. The comparison is between him at Bank, see, and I must admit that the, you know, his public persona is slightly more open. There's there are videos of him having interviews. With other kind of independent art media, and this is something that the the, you know he himself says he doesn't worry about actually the police coming after him because they wouldn't do something that would raise some type of international backlash. But I think that he's not insulated from that and this is a this is a government which has demonstrated that when small groups of civil society actors get together or activists get together and protests in very small numbers that they charged them with sedition, and they arrest these leaders. So he has to be very careful. And I think it's just a matter of the military catching up rather than actually allowing beyond that political commentary has been quite muted since the two thousand fourteen coup hasn't known political commentary. But also you know, we haven't that right now. There's a ban on all political activities, which means that there can be no meetings about politics more than five people pain public. And this has had. An incredibly chilling effect on on tights politics. There is a very large and social movement that was in that supported the deposed, prime minister toxin Chinnawat referred to as the red shirt movement, right? And that that movement did not come out onto the streets after the coup like many people thought it would and that that would be really the core source of political popular opposition to the government. That's not there. And these smaller groups, including people like headache are taking incredible risks making these type of stan's publicly as we've talked about the possibility of of small numbers of people being cracked down on and use it as a as an example perhaps, but as something that political satire, something as trivial trivial, is this a sign of weakness, perhaps in Thailand, do you think Juliet? Well, again, you go to government which is out. She gets nine grip on the country and men, but they came in at the time because they said older walls needed, and the inference was with was they weren't again to say, for a short while until old restored what they. Tennis was that they were the ones restoring the older, no intention of leaving. So yes, they bound be things thin skin. They will have the sense of humor deficit, but let's let's not forget that even if they tried to silence Headey come, they will be of the headaches out that he will simply pick up with the pick out what he left off and don't forget that you can't suppress the internet because a lot of these pictures have been photographed and they've been carried on the various social media networks and they've, they've added to headaches fame. So yeah, it's it this. This is not going to stolp because they're cracking down if anything this feeds it onto you, you've got to admit that some of the outlook is pretty cool, not. Very impressive is it's not just the lucky cat, but I think there was also the captured cat. It was a. It was a. So that was captured is endangered species but didn't stop the government from hunting because he wants to pets very exotic pet, but deputy prime ministers face inside an alarm. So yes to his inexplicable collection of luxury watches the mall because his shoes Radi. Well, finally, today with the midterm elections in the US tricks weeks away, we'll go back stateside television schedules increasingly clogged with political advertisements. But even in a country where political ads can be downright nasty. This perhaps sets a new standard. Paul gosar the congressman isn't doing anything to help rural America. Paul's absolutely not working for his district. If they care about healthcare, they care about their children's health care. They would hold him to account if they care about jobs, they would hold him to account if he actually cared about people in rural areas. ONA I bet he'd be fighting full social security for better access to healthcare. I better. He, I bet he would be researching what is the most insightful water policy to help the environment of Arizona sustain itself and be successful, and he's not listening to you and he's doesn't have your interests at heart. My name is Tim. Gosar David gosar, grace, gosar Joan gosar goes, are Jennifer gosar pogo SARS my brother, my brother and I endorse Dr real Dr bureau, wholeheartedly endorsed Dr. David Brill for congress. I'm Dr David Brill and I approve this message go there. You have it. The voices of Sieff, the siblings of Arizona Republican. Paul Gozo in an advertisement for the man who hopes to defeat him the Democrat, David Brill as far as TV ads go. Juliette, this one perhaps wins for effectiveness. It goes to prove that you can choose your friends, but not your family do have to. How'd you do have to ask yourself if the, if these guys get together mum's house for Sunday lunch? Is she going to have to somehow stop the misusing the cutlery turning the brother. I mean, it's it's a great piece of campaign. Would it make much difference? I doubt it very much because I think he's held the seat since two thousand eleven, although outs and he's good at pussy strong. Well, he's, he's come back and very strong swings. So it might actually have the opposite effect to encourage people to vote for him, but it's kept us amused. Is below the Bill. Then do you think rounding up a sibling. I think it's a political strategist dream. And I mean in in the US politics, family matters a lot. And but in this case I think you're right that this is this is Aaron Zona. None of these as I was listening to the list of issues that that they were talking about that that the that he's not focused on Arizona's a very conservative state and many of these things. For instance, environmental water, sustainable, environmental water policy is not what's going to be on people's minds. And I think that was even pointed out in sort of rebuttal saying, you know, we're going to carry on with with our conservative values and to the point being by Paul gosar is that none of his siblings live in Arizona and his mom still has his back. She came out with a statement. I think he's, he's also said, well, the only reason why Superman's is saying this about me because they're all disgruntled, Hillary Clinton. I'd explains a lot. You know this, this, we'll see how far and wide it gets distributed, but do you think this type of ad in its format can still work? Is it effective? I was, you know, the that is interesting because we don't know until the very end that they're all siblings. And when I first heard the the ad, I thought to myself, this is kinda interesting because it is kind of very straight talking. And I thought aesthetically it was very, it was fairly well done, although the production but is not too high and then you have the kicker. So I think that it is there is a kind of a very down to earth aspect of the at even without them being their siblings are the short and punchy social media posts a more effective. Do you think Juliet than this sort of long winded stab at a brother backstab. Depends on how they how they use me. You can have a great internet company and it doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be successful. I mean to me, it's it. It is the the reverse effect because I, I don't think it will make that much difference. It might teach into his lead up to a certain extent, but not enough to give a sleepless night not you'll find in in some ways. It reminds very famous company which took place in New Zealand. Woman said, don't vote for me. Don't vote for me out. Of course, everybody did. She didn't want to be a counselor, but she ended up winning so it can. I know maybe it'll go the other way, but I doubt it somehow. Well, we shall see and that music means we're quickly running out of time here on today's show Carlo venero and Julia foster. Thank you so much for the lively debate and for joining us here at Midori house. Today's show produced by Ben Ryland research by Fernando Augusto protect our studio manager. David Stevens more music is next and then at nineteen hundred hours the monocle culture show and we'll have more on the day's main stories on the monocle daily. That's at twenty two hundred London time with Andrew Muller Midori. House back at the same time tomorrow. Eighteen hundred in London. Nineteen hundred Incirlik I'm Daniel Bates. Thank you so much for listening and goodbye.

Donald Trump United States president Rod Rosenstein Carlo Midori house Daniel Bates Juliette foster United Nations Juliet Justice department Anita hill Jeff Sessions Paul gosar Robert Muller Arizona Rosenstein deputy attorney general Thailand UN London
Source Close to White House: Rosenstein claims could serve as pretext for any president to fire the deputy attorney general; Senator Schumer warns Trump not to use claims to fire Rosenstein; Trump speaks at campaign rally in Missouri

Erin Burnett OutFront

48:51 min | 2 years ago

Source Close to White House: Rosenstein claims could serve as pretext for any president to fire the deputy attorney general; Senator Schumer warns Trump not to use claims to fire Rosenstein; Trump speaks at campaign rally in Missouri

"Support for out front comes from our friends at rocket mortgage by Quicken Loans who were excited to introduce their all new rate shield approval. If you're in the market to buy a home rate, shield approval is a real game changer. And here's why I quick and loans will lock your rate for up to ninety days while you shop. But here's the crucial part. If rates go up your rate stays the same. But if rates go down your rate also drops either way you win. It's the kind of thinking you'd expect from America's largest mortgage lender to get started. Go to rocketmortgage dot com slash out front. Out front. Next breaking news sources, say deputy attorney, general rod Rosenstein disgust wearing a wire to record conversations with President Trump and urged cabinet members to consider invoking the twenty fifth amendment. Now we'll Trump fire Rosenstein. We have new details on the president's thinking. Rosenstein says the reports aren't true. Is he telling the truth? I'll ask one of his longtime friends and Ted Cruz fighting for his political life tonight relied at his first debate with democrat, but, oh, rook. Let's go out front. Good evening. Everyone. I'm Kate Baldwin in for Erin Burnett out front tonight, breaking news, Rosenstein job on the line. The bombshell report tonight that rod Rosenstein wanted to invoke the twenty fifth amendment to re to remove Trump from office and suggested wearing a wire on more than one occasion to secretly record the president, a source close to the White House tonight says that could serve as a pretext for firing the deputy attorney general in any administration. This has the president's allies pouncing calling for Rosenstein to be fired from conservatives like former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee who tweeted that if it's true, Jeff Sessions needs to fire Rosenstein. And if he won't, Donald Trump needs to fire both of them to other Fox News personalities, and the message really doesn't get any more clear than this. Now he must be fired. And Rosenstein boss attorney general Jeff Sessions also said, is said to be upset and concerned tonight after reading the reports about his number two according to source. MRs Rosenstein made these questions in the spring of two thousand seventeen. Shortly after the president had fired, then director, James Komi, and the discussions were documented at least in part and memo's by former FBI deputy director, Andrew McCabe. Those memos are now in the hands of the special counsel and Robert Muller's investigation is being overseen by rod Rosenstein. Now, Rosenstein is forcefully denying the reports in a rare public statement. He calls the story quote in accurate and factually incorrect. Jim Acosta is out front live at the White House for us. So Jim, what is the president's reaction tonight? Interesting. The president has had no reaction so far. He has not spoken to reporters. Reporters were asking this question as he landed in Missouri for a rally later on this evening and that that rally could happen any moment now and given the fact that the president has been going down this rabbit hole of late complaining about a conspiracy against him, complaining about a deep state. You would think that this rod Rosenstein story would fit neatly into that narrative, but the president has not taken advantage of that his sources, whereas officials top officials here at the White House have not taken advantage of that. But I, I will tell you that sources close to this White House told me Kate that they feel at this point that this rod Rosenstein story is essentially a pretext for the president if he wanted to to fire rod Rosenstein and those in the words of one source close to the White House. This would be the case in any administration when you have a deputy attorney general going around talking about whether it's our cast or not about a wearing a wire and secretly recording the president or going around and recruiting people to invoke. The twenty fifth amendment and had the president removed from office that would that would justify firing a deputy attorney general in any case. But yet at this hour, we have not heard any hyperbolic statements from the president of not seeing any hyperbolic tweets in the president. But as you said, just a few moments ago, Kate, the president does often look to what is taking place in conservative media and many of his allies in conservative media are saying at this point, the president fire rod Rosenstein. And at this point we're waiting to see what the White House does. Next I talked to White House official earlier this evening. Kate who said that this story did not come as surprise of the White House that they knew of the story, at least as of yesterday and they're plotting their response to all of this right now. But Kate, I find it to be very interesting at this hour that the president has not weighed in all of this. And I did talk to a source close to the White House earlier this evening who said, and I thought this was very interesting eight that the president and people here at the White House, they hate. They do not like this narrative of the twenty fifth amendment. This thing that was talked about, obviously in the Bob Woodward book, this notion. In that officials could go round and conspire behind the president, having removed from office that they just hate that narrative inside the White House. So the possibility I suppose exists that the reason why the White House President of not weighed in on all of this is they don't wanna feed into that narrative of narrative. And of course, Kate at this hours, you know, they're very much interested in trying to get Brad Kavanagh through the supreme court nomination process, and the president is going up to the United Nations General assembly next week. So they're, they're played is awfully full, but I think it is. It is quite fascinating tonight that the president and his team have not weighed in on this officially in any form to this explosive allegations that I came out in the New York Times earlier today that they've had they've had time to prepare for for south right. That there hasn't been a response yet is fascinating greatest, Jim. Thanks so much. I'll fronts out from with we now, the Frank Bruni New York Times columnist. Harry Sandik is here is a former assistant US attorney for the southern district of New York and c. n. n.'s Justice department correspondent Laura, Jarrett. It's great to see all of you, Frank. I don't know what, what does your gut tell you in this when you read all the details that are coming out of their reported in these stories, is this all headed to the eventual conclusion you think of Rosenstein getting fired? I think it probably isn't. I think in this case, if you read the story, Rosenstein action, sound so Iraq. And so under mining that I think even Trump's fiercest critics would not take issue with his being fired, but there's one wrinkle here that people aren't talking about. This is a story based on anonymous sources, right? This is the kind of story that the White House is constantly. Erica is fake news. So if they act on this and say, this is grounds for firing him, aren't they admitting that what we report? What CNN reports with the New York Times reports is true. As a fascinating. I I say, let us see what the president says, and then we will have an you already. Jumping ahead Laura, let me ask you. This rod Rosenstein is of course in charge of overseeing the Russian investigation because sessions recused himself, what would happen if he was gone? What would that mean for the molar investigation. So the important thing to recognize even if rod is out tonight, the molar investigation doesn't go away. It doesn't mean it all just sorta just closes up shop. There is a quite leafy line of succession over here at the Justice department for what would happen. If for whatever reason, Rosenstein either is fired or resigns, then the DOJ line of succession calls for the solicitor general, the old Francisco to step in his shoes and oversee as the acting attorney general. Because of course, the as you mentioned Kate, the only reason that Rosenstein is overseeing the molar probe is because attorney general Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself from all things related to the twentieth sixteen campaign. So if if for whatever reason, Rosenstein was to step aside or his out than franscisco becomes the next in line. Now that doesn't mean the president couldn't for whatever reason, install an acting deputy attorney general that he wants his choosing. He's allowed to do that under the bacon sees. Act. He can do that with anyone who Senate confirmed if he wants. But there is someone here in place if for whatever reason, the president was just let the line of succession take place, but I should mention we're getting way ahead of ourselves here. We have no indication that he is going anywhere, but there is a plan in place and it would not require or would not. Rather I should say, I mean that molar is going anywhere Harry. This. Just to put a finer fine point on it. This did not. According to these reports, this does not go beyond words. This was talk. This was suggestion of this was not action on. But if true, do you think this is grounds for firing a deputy attorney general? I think it probably is something as Frank was saying that if your attorney general proposes this series, I think it is or your deputy attorney general proposes seriously wearing a wire to meet with the president to try to take him out of office. I think most presidents would feel comfortable replacing that person. I also think though from the context and from what we know about the deputy attorney general, if the words were said, it seems more likely they were said and some sort of sarcastic were exasperated way rather than as a serious plan to actually wire up and go in and do this. And what happens is if these were recorded in a memo by acting director McCabe, he's not going to write down the tone in which they were said. He's probably just going to write down the words that were said and be. Texture might be important. I think that's right. And it's it's sort of like reading Email, you know, sometimes you don't know the tone of the person who's writing the the words. And I think something like that could be going on here because I just don't want the state lost in in this moment how extrordinary that would be? Yes. If the deputy attorney general, the United States was seriously having a conversation about himself wearing a wire or talking to others to wear a wire to record the president of the United States and talking about going around and seeing how much interest there wasn't the twenty fifth amendment and mentioning we have and said, according to the story, he's telling people, I think I can get Jeff Sessions on board. I think I can get John Kelly who was. Yeah, but. Here at wondering so we know that Trump has read this story with, no, they're talking about it. How, what is this doing to his tender psyche? You know, I mean, this is coming fast on the heels of fear. It's coming fast on the heels of the anonymous op-ed. In my newspaper Saturday morning is prime real estate for Trump tweet storm. I feel like we should keep our eyes glued to the president's Twitter account tomorrow morning or shield them depending on how you're feeling Laura this, this all happened. If we're talking about the context of this all happen right after the president had fired James combing, which this all occurred, two weeks after Rosenstein started on the job. What do you know about Rosenstein mindset around that time? Because that seems to be part of this conversation. Now, I think that's a key a key point there. It was a frantic time for everyone, especially the deputy attorney general. He had only been on the job for a couple of weeks. He gets thrust into the middle of this because of course we all remember, he writes this sort of cryptic memo about how. James Komai botched. The Hilary Clinton Email investigation, which at least initially Trump us is the dust af- occasion for why he has to get rid of him. He then later backtracks on all of that, but at least rods mental had become the pretexts and then everything is sort of thrown into a tailspin and the deputy, a former deputy at the FBI injury. Cape was extremely close to James Komi. So it's worth remembering his friend, his boss, the head of this agency has just been fired. Everyone is sort of reeling from it. You really pick up on it in the text messages between former officials at the FBI page and struck at the time. You get a sense that everyone over there really did admire James Komi. And so everyone is sort of dealing with the fallout of this. And then meanwhile, rod is having meetings with somebody that he doesn't know that well, and so- McCabe has documented these conversations in his contemporaneous notes. And as one source, you told me like McCain has no reason to lie about this, but then other people push back and say. He is under investigation for lying to investigators. And so is he really a reliable and they're eater, and perhaps you know, will have these divergent tails at the end of the day, but it, it leaves the deputy attorney general in a really tough spot to have someone have contemporaneous notes with him talking about wearing a wire on the president at state land us all in the middle of just as you're describing it, just the middle of another mess a mess of credibility yet again, mccabe's memo's is we're talking about there in the hands of the Bob Muller team right now. What do they do with all of that? I think that it is relevant perhaps broadly to the obstruction investigation that's being conducted. What was the fallout from the firing of Komi? How did people react to both the president and his team and others within the administration? And so even if these words were not said in earnest, but we're said sarcastically, the very idea that the deputy attorney general is talking like this. It's not normal. It's not a usual thing. Happen in administration. And so I do think it's a some interest anyway. So the Muller team as they look at whether the Komi firing was obstructive or something else. And how did all of these come out in the first place other than intrepid reporting, great to see you guys. Thank you so much out front. Next Rosenstein denies the report, but is he telling the truth, his longtime friend and former DOJ official is out front plus secretary. Ben Carson has a wild theory about what's behind the allegation against Brad Kavanagh. You'll have to hear it to believe it and Ted Cruz in a dog fight for his Texas Senate seat debating and democratic challenger right now, we're going to take you live to that debate. Support for out front comes from our friends at rocket mortgage by Quicken Loans. Let's talk about buying a home for a minute because of rising interest rates. There's a lot of unpredictability when it comes to buying a home these days, it's causing a lot of anxiety with folks. Well, our friends at Quicken Loans are doing something about that. They're calling it, the power buying process. Here's how it works. Quicken Loans will verify your income assets and credit in less than twenty four hours to give you a verified approval. This gives you the strength of a cash buyer. Then once you're verified, you qualify for their all new exclusive rate shield approval. I, they'll lock your rate for up to ninety days while you shop. Now, here's the best part. If rates go up your rate stays the same. But if rates go down your rate also drops either way you win. It's the kind of thinking you'd expect from America's largest mortgage lender to get started, go to rocket mortgage dot com. Slash out front rate shield approval only valid on certain thirty year purchase transactions. Additional conditions or exclusions may apply based on Quicken Loans, data in comparison to public data records equal housing lender licensed in all fifty states and MLS consumeraccess dot org. Number thirty thirty. The top democrat in the Senate Chuck Schumer warning the president tonight against firing deputy attorney, general rod Rosenstein tweet sending out this statement saying this, this New York Times report must not be used as a pretext for the corrupt purpose of firing deputy attorney, general Rosenstein in order to install an official who will allow the president to interfere with the special counsel's investigation this after the New York Times. First reported that Rosenstein disgust invoking the twenty fifth amendment to remove President Trump from office back in two thousand seventeen Rosenstein also considered wearing a wire boys, the report to secretly record conversations with the president and the aftermath of firing the FBI, then FBI director, James combing Rosenstein tonight, calling the report inaccurate and factually incorrect out front now, democratic congresswoman of California, Jackie speier. She sits on the house intelligence committee congressman. Thank you for coming in. Thank you for the invitation. Kate, of course. So we know that the president has considered. Darren Rosenstein in the past, but with this news tonight, do you think Rosenstein is going to be fired. Well, it certainly gives the president president the excuse to fire him. But I think it's really important for all of us to remember who the attorney general is responsible to the attorney general. The deputy attorney general is responsible to the American people and the constitution of the United States. He is not the private attorney of Donald Trump and the president can't get that through his head. A lot of people have been talking about invoking the twenty fifth amendment. It doesn't surprise me that rod Rosenstein had been in conversations about whether or not it should be invoked. But again, it has to be invoked. It doesn't. It doesn't surprise me that the deputy attorney general United States is floating this. Well, it doesn't surprise me because their their allegiance is to the American people in the constitution that chaos in this administration, the lack of normalcy in the president's interactions with everyone is. Not right. It is not how we should be operating as the United States of America, and so it doesn't surprise me anonymous. Whoever anonymous is has referenced that there was a habit discussion about this, so it's it's been going on for some time. I'm sure went, but the the actions that we're learning tonight talking about secretly recording the president and also talking about invoking as we're talk about the twenty fifth amendment to remove the president from office, are those actions grounds for firing. Again, grounds for firing would be if he was violating the law and I don't think that you can make the case that rod Rosenstein is violating the law in conversations with people about whether or not the president is showing a incapacity to do. The job is is looking out for the American people but doesn't use serve at the pleasure of the president. The president has the power to hire and fire in that position. Well, certainly the president does, but under the circumstances where the president of the United States is under investigation by the special counsel who has been appointed by rod Rosenstein, I think changes the dynamic if Rosenstein goes, do you? Do you think that that means the end of the molar investigation. I think that the end of the Muller advice investigation will come when Mr. Muller has finally made a report to the congress of the United States. If the president does anything, anything at all to tamper with that investigation, I believe that will be grounds for impeachment. You think fire Rosenstein is in your view, tampering with the investigation. That in and of itself is not. But if he tries to shut down the investigation, it clearly would be between this. And as you mentioned the anonymous op Ed from the senior administration official was laying out how there were people working on the inside of the administration working against the president's agenda are Trump supporters right? To be concerned that there's a deep state working against him. I think his base is very impressed by whatever Donald Trump says, and he has been very effective at holding onto that base. Now when he starts calling the attorney general dumb, dumb southerner. I think that's going to start rubbing his base. Again. The president does not act normally in engaging with his cabinet and with others, both in the congress and in the media, and he is trying to divide our country. And I think what's happening is the independence that voted for him have absolutely walked away from him and his support is declining. There's no question about it, and that is one thing to be tested in the mid terms coming up very, very soon and many other topics are discussed. If you don't have a thank you for coming on cars woman to discuss this breaking, really appreciate it. Thank you out front next breaking news. The Republicans. Giving Brett Kavanagh's, accuser, Christine Blasi poured an ultimatum agree tonight to testify or the committee votes on Kavanagh's domination on Monday, and some Rosenstein associates say the he was just kidding about the potential of wearing a wire to tape the president. Is he the joking type Rosenstein, longtime friend. My name is Paul Shirley, and I've gone on a lot of dates. I've noticed something on these dates. I often find myself telling the same stories stories about my mother teaching sex Ed stories about playing college basketball stories about playing NBA basketball and almost dying in the process. We all do this. We tell stories on dates because dates or when we get to explain where we've been in, what we've seen in why we think like we do my name is Paul Shirley, and I hope you'll check out my new narrative podcast stories I tell on dates, you can subscribe for free on apple podcasts or wherever you find your favorite shows. We're gonna live pictures right now out of Missouri President Trump about to speak at a campaign rally there, but which Trump will be showing up the president who surprised zone aids for being restrained in his comments about supreme court. Nominee bread, Kavanagh's accuser, or the president who tweeted this today. I have no doubt. He writes that if the attack on Dr Ford was as bad as as bad as she says charges would have been immediately filed with local law enforcement authorities by either her or her loving parents. And then there is this breaking news right now on Capitol Hill, Senate Judiciary committee, chairman, Chuck Grassley warning. There will be a vote Monday on cavenaugh if there is no deal by tonight for four to testify someone's Prodi is out front on Capitol Hill. So Sunlen looks like the ball is now back in Ford Escort what's happening. Well, Kate, the ball is certainly right now in Dr Ford's court, but it certainly will not be for much longer. She has just under three hours to make her decisions and let the committee know of her decisions. What she intends to do. You'll recall that about mid day today, the chairman of the committee, the Senate Judiciary committee submitted the plan to Dr Ford's leaguer team outlining the terms of a potential testimony up here on Capitol Hill win. It would happen potentially what it would look like, who would testify who'd be the the questioners. They're all of those details. All of those Justice, of course. So important where so many sticking points truly remain. But tonight really chairman, glass Grassley making it known that this is a hard deadline. He I had a five pm deadline that was not reached. He then set a ten pm deadline that is offer on the table and sources. Tell me here tonight. Kate that that is the final offer, make this deadline. Or he's saying that he will push towards a vote on Cavanaugh on Monday of next week. So this is sensually the chairman of the committee escalating the pressure ramping up the pressure. Essentially, this is going to happen or not a Grassley intends to find out tonight. So a lot potentially could unfold over the next few hours and we'll see if her legal team accepts the term so many sticking points potentially still remain. Oh, yeah, absolutely. All right, someone. Thanks so much up front with me. Now Steve Cortez a member of President Trump's twenty twenty reelect advisory council and smoke Sanders, former national press secretary for Bernie Sanders. Twenty sixteen campaign. It's great to see you both says only get back to bring back to the president's comments today as we watch and wait for him to speak tonight to hear what he has to say. I mean, everyone was patting the president on the back for his restraint is this story was coming out. That's no longer the case. I mean, he took on Krisztian Blasi four directly. What changed for the president. Right. I don't know frankly, what changed? I think that the tweet I, I would not have sent that tweet out. I don't think it's helpful to the process at this point. But I do also having said that I also understand his frustration and my guess I've not talked to him or the White House today, but my guess is what changed is his frustration level grew, which I understand because I think far too many people for too many democratic senators. People like Senator gillibrand far too many people in mainstream media have thrown out the principle of the presumption of innocence for the accused, and that is a bedrock principle of American Justice. And there's a reason for that by the way, it's not just to be nice to the cues, it's because it's difficult if not impossible for the accused approved that they did not do something. So the onus is always on the accuser, the prosecutor in our system. But we seem to have forgotten that when it comes to Kennedy or she's to cavenaugh. And so I think, look, we have to come to terms with the fact that it's very likely we will never know what happened or didn't happen. Almost forty years ago. Given that all we can rely on really in terms of Brent cavenaugh is what has his adult life been like and nothing in his adult life indicates he's the kind of person to perpetrate these kinds of crimes. Okay. Kate. So just a few things. I just just a few. If I may first and foremost, the president was absolutely despicable for the tweet that he sent today because Brett cavenaugh has the whole brunt force of the White House behind him. He has this entire time. Everyone is known it. It's given Dr Ford and she has been treated in my opinion unfairly. But what he did today was was was just inexcusable. He, he skipped exhibited no compassion, no understanding if you will, of what someone goes through who has been sexually assaulted who has been abused, he just despicable. So that's first and foremost. Secondly, there is a way for us to know what happened that what happened? That fateful night the doctor. Ford is talking about how about an FBI investigation, but the white. House has declined to ask for one there is a way for us to get some folks, some additional testimony, hop on holding a hearing with additional folks such as the therapist or Mark judge whom Dr Ford named in the room. The third person, the doctor Ford named in the room, putting those folks under oath, but the Republicans are declining to do that. And so this has been an unfair process, but with the president did today was just the cherry on top of a very despicable. And dare I say, deplorable cake today, Kate the one thing, one thing about kind of real occur patterns and trends, right? Steve. So this is far from the first time that we've seen President Trump or Donald Trump before he was president take side of the accused and attack the accuser, not just waiting for to play out. I mean, he's done it for years from Rhonda rails, ROY Moore to Mike Tyson to accusations against himself. Of course, he's going to defend himself, but going after an attack in the accuser. Just just listen to this. It's very sad because he's a very good person. I've always found him to be just a very, very good person totally denies it. He says it didn't happen and you know, you have to listen to them. Also, these people are horrible people, the horrible, horrible, liars Mike Tyson. In my opinion, it should really be given another break. I mean, they put them in jail before he was even guilty as far as I was to do. You. He was going to rape Steve. This looks like a pattern and not a very good one. Not a good one at all. Well, the tape you showed Kate would indicate a pattern. However, you left out something very, very significant and much more relevant to politics, which is a case of Bill Clinton, where he absolutely believed those accusers. And why did he believe those accusers? Because unlike Brent Cavanaugh who has led an impeccable life of public service of devotion to his family, Bill Clinton has led a life as a sexual predator who exploits abuses women. So those accusations are far more believable. Now, we still don't know that they're true just as we don't know. These accusations from MS. Ford are true, but they're much more believable given the pattern of Bill Clinton's life than the Brett cavenaugh pattern of, again, scholarship service, catering, volunteering, family really liked to say. Sometimes I, I believe, Dr Ford. Secondly, Brett Cavanaugh could have been a boy scout for all we know he could lead it eagle scout troop. He could visit elderly people every damn day of his life, bringing them cookies and everything else they need, and he could still have. Done this. The fact that he's leading a quote unquote impeccable life. The fact that you know he's promoted, women has nothing to do with the conduct the doctor. Ford says he exhibited thirty five years ago, and I think that's important. People can be good people and still do bad things. People can can be so far that is the, but no, but you're, you're making the case that because Brett Kavanagh's a good guy, quote, unquote that he could have possibly done. This don't know what's dangerous much more important than that before it has no one. Meaning to lie her let she has been lent Bassett as a liar. Throughout the media, there have been members of congress on and off the record on social media in the newspapers that have called her everything under the sun. That of asserted she's mixed up. She has no incentive, but the come forward except until the just a just a small point of fact, we'll we'll remember in the distant past that Trump did defend Bill Clinton and ninety eight before he then believed the accusers in two thousand sixteen but continue stick. That's all I'm saying until my only point and I'm not saying we cannot continue to try to make Brett Cavanaugh out as though he's a martyr when we there, it's just not okay. Do you think. Great character. What I'm saying is in the absence of evidence, and there is no evidence here. There is neither sculptural. Is there nor is there? No, nor is there incriminating evidence there maybe had no. The only witness, the only witness says it didn't happen and didn't. And he didn't. Refusing because there's a yes, under the penalty of perjury, he did to the committee. So because of the, there's literally a complete void of evidence. All we have to go on is what we can make the pattern of a person's life. And I'm just providing the contrast of Bill Clinton's life lead you to easily believe that he abused and exploited crazy, and we're Kavanagh's why. This is our last thing I wanted to say on that. Madison. It's plausible. I want to say on this on that point is that you know what the Catholic church is currently going through a reckoning because many folks now some twenty thirty, maybe even forty years later, have come forward saying someone touched them. Something happened to them when they were altar boy or Alta girl and no one. No, not not want to say no one, but the overwhelming majority of folks are taking those accusations as credible accusations. And the Catholic church is being investigated, and they're going through a reckoning. And these now adult in the situation at once young boys and young girls are receiving Justice, where is that same compassion for Dr Ford. Well, depends on what side you stand right now because there are a lot, unfortunately. The answers is because this is thrown into a horrible political. Tornado. That's the only way you can think of it. And that's what, and that's what this come from. Great to see you guys. Thanks so much, much more to come, especially to find out. Will there be a vote or will be testifying that we will still find out later tonight I'll front for us next though. Rod Rosenstein forcefully. Denying the reports tonight is he telling the truth, I'll ask one of his longtime friends. We joining and relied at one of the most highly anticipated debates this year. Ted, Bruce versus beta a ROY. Hey, it's Howard Beck, and I've got money mccutchen the NBA vice president of referee development and training on Bleacher reports. The full forty eight referee served the game, our players, our coaches, and our franchises are the game. And that's a huge distinction that I- refugees understand and it's wonderful to serve this. This game is the best game ever invented to my opinion. And I, we love serving the game. So check out the full forty eight. Now on the Bleacher report app, apple podcasts, and Spotify. Nepal, the breaking news and the extrordinary new claims that the man overseeing the rush investigation deputy attorney general rod Rosenstein, disgust secretly recording the president and recruiting cabinet members to invoke the twenty fifth amendment to remove the president from office. Former DOJ officials are coming to Rosenstein defense tonight. One telling CNN when we were in a tense meeting, he's able to dial down the tension with a well timed joke, but is the straight laced deputy attorney general. Even the joking type out front. Now, James trustees a former chief of the organized crime section for the department of Justice. He's also a longtime friend of deputy attorney. General rod Rosenstein Mr. trustee. Thanks for coming in. Sure. So do you believe this reporting that Rosenstein wanted to get others to invoke the twenty fifth amendment and he also wanted to record conversations with the president? No, I'm trying to think of the suitable phrase or word for television, but I guess we'll go with garbage, although I'm kind of worried. That's an insult to garbage. It's ridiculous. I don't think any of this stuff happened. Tell me why based on what you based on the rod Rosenstein you know why you think it's garbage. Right. Well, let me just say, I mean, the first part in terms of talking about wearing a wiretap to talk to the president, I don't buy it maybe as kind of a sarcastic put down to somebody who is suggesting it. But the second part is just absurd. This is a constitutional scholar, a longtime prosecutor, smart guy. He is not thinking the twenty fifth amendment applies when you just don't like the president. He knows very well. The twenty fifth amendment is designed to have a situation where you can relieve the presidency when the president is truly incapacitated. I'm talking like coma tos, and so there's just not even a moment's chance that rod Rosenstein would sit there and contemplate this bloodless coup of using the twenty fifth amendment to get rid of a sitting president. It's just not even conceivable. It's interesting because the. New York Times offered some real detail on the twenty fifth amendment. Talk at one point putting it this way. He Rosenstein did tell Mr. McCabe Andrew McCabe that he might be able to persuade attorney general Jeff Sessions and John Kelly, then the secretary of homeland security, and now the White House chief of staff to mountain effort to invoke the twenty fifth amendment. And also some of the conversations. These were detailed indicates memos that have been turned over to the special counsel. I mean, do you think McCabe and others made this up? We'll McCabe has had the inspector general fine that he lied on four occasions including lying about what he said during the last lie. This is not a guy who has instant credibility in my book. And so honestly, I think there's some room for confusion, misunderstanding who said what we're the sarcasm was, but you know, you've got a guy who's got a track record of lying as the inspector general found who's in the market for selling a book, and you've got the New York Times taking his story as gospel. I just. I just don't buy it. I just don't think that books should be in the fiction section, not the nonfiction, give any. Wariness of any. I don't know how better way to say this beef between rod Rosenstein Andrew McCabe. No, although you do have a high place official within the FBI who was fired from his job and is facing the potential for federal prosecution with the grand jury proceedings. I'm not privy to the inner circle of how they all communicated during that transition from McCabe position as a number two in the FBI to somebody who's selling books in a bad spot, but there's certainly room for that. And again, I don't. I don't pretend to know the full story of who would be trying to put a knife in rods back, but I think there's plenty of people that would have a motive to do that. And that actually something I wanted to ask you if you're right in this is not true, then someone is really out to get him. Do you think he's being setup? Well, look, there's only a couple of scenarios that makes sense. One is just kind of mistake and it doesn't come off as a mistake in report. The other is just media buys, and I know it's a shock, but. Sometimes the New York Times doesn't get it right. But the other version is that somebody reported it and kind of a credible fashion or intended to report it in a credible fashion to get at rod. And frankly, he's been under the crosshairs of a lot of folks, you know, and you can kind of fill in which political party you want. But the bottom line is he's been in a very high profile controversial position. He's drawn criticism from all quarters some because they think he's not moving fast enough others because they think he's too secretive. I chalk it up to a guy who's a professional prosecutor doesn't leak as business all over Washington. You've known him a long time when he issued a rare public statement, denying these claims. What do you think is what's his reaction to this tonight? I, you know, I don't know. I know what I would do. I'd be. I'd be a menace in my my family would say, please don't come home tonight your way to angry. But I've known rod for eighteen years. He's a very measured guy. He's a very calm guy. Even that aspect of the report just rings false that he was in some sort of a panicky. Jittery state after Komi was fired. That's just not the way this guy operates. And so I suspect that his credit, he probably goes home and values his family time and doesn't spend a whole lot of time letting it distract him. Do you think your friends are gonna lose his job over this. I don't know. I assure you know, look, let me just also tell you. I've been friends with rod for about eighteen years. I do respect him and like him, but he'll be the first to tell you. I don't just automatically say what he wants people to say. I've I've been criticized by him for being too harsh on the department that I worked at for seventeen years. So I don't say any of this lightly, and I don't think it's a matter of me being biased by friendship. I hope he doesn't get fired because I think it's a very disruptive and a bad moment politically for this country to go through. But you know, he's very fatalistic about it. He's going to take it in stride, no matter what happens. And I hope he continues to do what he's done for so many years as a very professional objective, talented prosecutor, Mr. chassis. Thanks for coming in. Interesting. I appreciate it. I'll press next Ted Cruz. Pedro Rourke, their first debate happening right now. The race now considered a tossup? Yes. In Texas. How did that happen in the red state of Texas. And President Trump has hailed the government's response to hurricane Maria and Puerto Rico as an unsung success. Others call it a failure. What really happened there. Soccer fans are you? Tired of missing great UEFA games and giving soul crushing spoilers from friends, good news, reports, new VR live that helps you watch all UEFA Champions League and wait for your openly games. Uninterrupted, because live should be live, no more third-party sites, cramping, your style, or scouring the internet for updates. Now with VR live super easy to get started. Download the app and visit Biard dot live from more live over everything in subscription purchase and additional terms may apply. Breaking news. We're gonna show you live pictures out of Texas in just a moment, Republican Senator Ted Cruz debating democratic congressman beta Rourke in their first face to face match up in one of the most closely, watched races this year. The fireworks already on display tonight. During this exchange about police and race. The police are risking their lives to protect all of us to protect African Americans, Hispanics and turning people against the police centered, I think is refunding. This is why people don't like Washington DC. You just said something that I did not say, what did you not it to me. I'm not going to repeat. I'm not going to repeat this land. I'm not going to repeat the slam, not gonna say what your station. Geez at eleven dares out front for us. Now crews is truly fighting what could be the toughest battle of his political career. I mean, cook political report, move the race to an again reliably, red Texas toss up what's going on down there. Well, you know, it's the question. Everyone here in Texas. Political circles is wondering to just whether or not the candidacy in the campaign of El Paso. Congressman democrat better or work is the real deal here in Texas. You know, many people here in this state well, versed on all almost twenty five years of democratic talk that they would win back some sort of statewide race. A democrat hasn't been elected here statewide in roughly twenty five years, but there is an intense amount of buzz surrounding better Rourke's turning out massive crowds in the most unlikely of places. A number of polls have had him within striking distance. Although the latest poll this week showed Ted Cruz up nine points, but many people, you know, really interested to see about whether or not on election day. This campaign is the real deal. I just I think that's rain. I thought that was a fountain going on behind you and that is happening around you. That is, but really quickly, of course, is you mentioned Texas hasn't elected a democratic democratic Senator Sens Eighty-eight. Everyone wonders is still piper pipe dream for Democrats. I mean as beta landing any punches is Ted Cruz is known for his debating abilities. Both bookmaking dog I've interviewed both been here in the last few weeks. I was kind of joking with someone that they are both extremely long winded of very well at public, very good at public speaking. I thought in an hour-long debate, you know, maybe a Bill get to questions, but they are both very strong on the debate. They've been going back and forth over over a number of issues. And what is really interesting to see here in this federal campaign? It's just how much money he has raised. He hasn't actually outraged Ted Cruz in fundraising by, I think I'll cash on hand has roughly four million dollars more left to spend here in the final weeks of this campaign. So that makes all of this extremely interesting, and it's a race that many people are paying attention to because no one really expected to have to pay attention to this race, and that's what's raising so many eyebrows in the political world down here in Texas. Money means a whole lot in politics, see what it means in the Senate race. Great to see you. Thank you. From press next hurricane ravaged, Puerto Rico, one year after Maria devastated the island thousands remain in homes without roofs, reliable power. How is that possible. Hello gas people do and that voice of SIMS on left go, you know, us from podcast called Simpson left go, but now we got a new show. We get a little different since we're kind of going to be big time going to Tong ball. I'm gonna talk sports and culture too. I'm gonna teach SIMS. The internet. We're going to have players onset. We're going to go out and mess with them. It's going to be a lot of fun. It is. We're going to be on the streets. We're gonna be talking to fans. We're gonna try to educate everybody and have a good time. So check it out the be our app, eight on Wednesday, PM shut up. One year ago this week, hurricane Maria slammed into Puerto Rico, becoming one of the worst natural disasters in US history, the monster devastated the island plunging. It's more than three million residents into now year long nightmare. The estimated deaths from the storm. Two thousand nine hundred seventy five people tonight c. n. as Leyla Santiago and build where take us there for an in depth. Look at the tragic aftermath of Maria and the federal government's response storm of controversy. What really happened in Puerto Rico, premieres tonight, here's a preview. The Puerto Rico was incredible on shown success, Texas. We have been given a+ of four. Florida. We beginning English. I think in a certain way, the best job we did was Puerto Rico, but nobody would understand that. I mean, that's. What is even harder to understand it's how the president can say such a thing on the very same day we discovered this staggering example of failure waste. How do you explain the millions of bottles of water? We found sitting on a runway gums. Bill Leyla are joining me right now Bill. Let's start with where that what I've seen. This is a really important, especially you guys have, but with those millions of bottles, one is the response that you're getting from FEMA is this the tip of the iceberg of a problem of how the response was all rolled? You know, it's all about, you know, it's all about timing. It's one thing to say. I have a kitchen full of food when you got ten guests coming over. It's another thing to get it all on the table at the same time and what they learned. And what the inspector general found is that they just flooded the zone way too late. They heard about the cry. They heard three million people running out of food water, and so they jammed it in their, but and now they can say it's the biggest response in history, but it came too late and that's the result right there. So less important to the probably twenty million dollars worth of water that's wasted is how many lives could have saved because due to landless dogged reporting suing the government of Puerto Rico, they've found we discovered the outbreak of this water, borne illness as a result of people not having freshwater. And so just one example of how human nature can take mother nature and make it that much more tragic and Layla you were there before during and after her. Like one hundred days in the last year. One hundred seventy seven hundred. You're in Puerto Rico tracking how the recovery has been slow and progress that has been made, where where would you say Puerto Rico is now in terms of its in terms of recovery? Depends on where you go. It really depends on where you go. When we in some one, I actually had a conversation with one of the hotel managers actually where I was standing right there and he said, please tell people to come, tell them to come. They want the, they were ready for the tourism they need. The tourism might powers go and food is going, it's great. But you just outside of someone and it's a different reality. I actually just got off the phone with the widow of gentleman that that's actually featured in our in the documentary as well as she said. You know, as I've been looking over the photo them actually seeing things for the first time because that's how bad it was. They didn't have communication. They didn't have power there. Now reliving this a year later, asking the same questions, we are, what the heck happened. How do we keep this from happening. Again, but they're two very different realities on that island. You gotta think about that island, like two different islands. Stormer controversy. Why? Why was there so much controversy? Why was this so hard for everyone to get on the same page? But you know, I think there's a couple of things that those water bottles you showed. When when I put that on Twitter, it was a real political roszak test people either immediately blamed the lazy Puerto Ricans entitled waiting for somebody to come blue over that water, or they blamed the inept federal government and ultimately FEMA owned it, but it's just telling that was so divided in this. And also the unfortunate truth is that a lot of people don't think of these people as full American. There's even though they've been in our wars for one hundred years and they mid making medicine for generations. If you ever took Viagra huggy Puerto Rican because that's where they made the most of it, but there for a long time. So, but do they need their own star on the flag to get treated the same as folks in Texas and Florida who got much more help faster, real quick. Do people Puerto Rico field forgotten. Yeah, they feel forgotten. But to bill's point, I asked every single person is it to you feel like a US citizen? I thought that was an important thing. And everybody actually said, yeah, they do, but they feel that in this natural disaster and the aftermath of it, they were US citizens who were. They're important conversation and really, really important reporting. Thanks, you guys. It's great to see you here because this crazy reporting from down there. You can watch that special tonight. Thanks for joining us. AC. Three sixty starts now. So many people around the world depend on CNN's quality reporting. And now they have an incredible online store. We'd clothes gear and gadgets right now you can get fifteen percent off your purchase, just visit store dot, CNN dot com. And when you're checking out into the code CNN podcast, just one word you can get a fifteen percent discount. It's that simple that's store dot, CNN dot com.

president President Trump Darren Rosenstein Rosenstein deputy attorney general rod Rosenstein Kate Baldwin attorney Ted Cruz New York Times official FBI United States Brett Kavanagh White House special counsel Trump Mr. McCabe Andrew McCabe Jeff Sessions America
The Whiplash-Inducing Rosenstein News Cycle

CNN's The Daily DC

10:33 min | 2 years ago

The Whiplash-Inducing Rosenstein News Cycle

"They take one last ride around the world, the EMMY award winning Anthony, bourdain parts, unknown the final episodes chairs, Sundays at nine on CNN. Hey, everyone. I'm David chalian the CNN political director, and this is the daily DC. Thanks so much for listening today on the podcast, what a Monday. This was, I apologize for those that were looking in their feed of podcasts that this podcast is getting a little late to you today, but the whiplash we were having about what was occurring at the White House this morning with deputy attorney general rod Rosenstein and whether or not he was resigning his position whether or not he was expecting to be fired. There were reports everywhere that he was imminently not going to be in his position. It seemed as deputy attorney general. It took a few hours to sort that out. And finally the White House put out a statement from Sarah Sanders, the White House, press secretary that made clear that. That indeed, the fate of deputy attorney general Rosenstein in the Trump administration is not certain, and here's the thing folks rod Rosenstein as you know, because Jeff Sessions the attorney general has recused himself is the overseer of Bob molars, Russia investigation that that is a a critical role right now as you know, because the investigation of course is constantly under attack from the president, some of his allies in the White House. Certainly some of his allies on Capitol Hill. So it is that it is that context that is important to keep in mind. Now that doesn't mean that no franscisco or whomever may be the next deputy jury general or acting deputy attorney general, who would have oversight of the Mueller probe would somehow up end or end the investigation. But it does raise the question about whether or not the Muller investigation is properly protected. This is what Sarah Sanders put out at its statement, Justice shortwhile ago. Quote at the request of deputy attorney, general rod Rosenstein. He and President Trump had an extended conversation to discuss the recent news stories that, of course, is a reference to the New York Times bombshell report on Friday that Rosenstein according to memos and recollections of people who were there had a conversation back. In the aftermath of Komi firing and new FBI candidates being interviewed had a conversation with some colleagues where the suggestion of wearing a wire to record the president was raised, and then there was questions about whether or not he was being serious or sarcastic. Rod Rosenstein issue two different statements on Friday saying that the time story was accurate. So again, Sarah Sanders at the request of deputy attorney general Rosenstein. He and President Trump had an extended conversation to discuss the recent news stories because the president is at the United Nations, General assembly and has a full schedule with leaders from around the world. They will meet on Thursday when the president returns to Washington DC Thursday. So let me just say. Circle your calendar. You may want to call in sick to work, start popping the popcorn because if Thursday really plays out at is as it is supposed to right now, that is to say that on Capitol Hill, we are going to see both Christine Blasi Ford and Brett cavenaugh testify before the Senate Judiciary committee about the accusations that professor Blasi has been has made about breath Cavanaugh that when they were teenagers back in the early eighties that he sexually assaulted her, that she thought he was going to rape her. This is obviously a high stakes moment that holds the whole cavenaugh nomination confirmation process in the balance also on Thursday. President Trump is now scheduled according to Sarah. Sanders to meet with rod Rosenstein. The man with whom the president is expressed great frustration at times and the man who oversees the thing that makes President Trump most unhappy about his presidency. The mall. Russia investigation are to have a meeting which clearly reading between the lines here is about his future. Whether or not he stays on in the Trump administration at the department of Justice, or if his time here is done. And somebody else takes over the oversight of the Muller Russia, probe. If both of those things happen on Thursday, I think it's safe to say it may be one of the most politically perilous and important days in the entirety of the Trump presidency. I know we've said that from time to time, but I'm, I'm pretty confident I'm pretty confident about the fact that Thursday, September twenty seventh, I guess it is will be that day. If both of those things come to fruition about that Blasi Ford and cavenaugh hearing scheduled for Thursday, it is scheduled for Thursday. She has accepted the invitation of the judiciary committee, but I don't yet. No, I can say with full confidence that that is absolutely going to happen. Obviously, other revelations were made in the New Yorker with Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer co writing a piece in the New Yorker about an accusation, meat being made against Brett Cavanaugh from his time in college, his freshman year at Yale in the early eighties, and that story is very Finley, corroborated. It is after the woman who is accusing cavenaugh, exposing himself placing his genitalia touching her with his genitalia and unwanted way that acusations that the New Yorker presented is one that the accuser herself was struggling with her memory of the issue which is causing to Republicans to raise a lot of questions about whether or not it was fair for the New Yorker to report it. I, I will leave that to the media critics and to journalism professors about how they would handle the. Porting of that story. I'm here to cover the politics of it, and the fact that it's out there in the either is a political problem for the White House and for the cavenaugh confirmation process, no doubt. It will rally Republicans to break Cavanaugh aside all the public posturing from Mitch McConnell is doubling down on the cavenaugh nomination, not pulling back one iota from it, but you now have Dr Blasi you now have Deborah Ramirez, this woman in the New Yorker piece making these claims. You have Michael Nadi saying the stormy Daniels lawyer saying he represents a client who has a story to tell. So we'll see if that materializes, but this may become just. So impossible for cavenaugh to break through the noise and the swirl that I'm not certain that the Thursday hearing will take place. I think we're in a very, very dangerous moment for the cavenaugh nomination. Right now, you can see the aggressive pushback. He put out a statement today from the White House, everything from the White House and Capitol Hill is complete public backing of them, strong statements from Republican senators, Tom cotton, and Lindsey, Graham, Lindsey, Graham, decrying the character assassination that is going on against Brad Kavanagh. But the political reality is Lindsay. Graham may be right. There may be character assassination going on here, but his character is coming in for a huge bruising right now and whether or not that is going to sit okay with Susan Collins, Jeff flake, Lisa Murkowski afford the duration here, especially if another woman comes out publicly and makes a claim against him, I think is something we don't know the answer to yet. So watch this space as they say for where we are. We are in a day by day moment right now as the cavenaugh nomination and confirmation is hanging by a thread as to whether or not the White House six with them. And if they do and the Senate Republicans do whether or not the votes are actually there. We are six weeks out from the midterm elections. The timing of this is rather tricky, which is why I think you see the Republicans Padru pulling down right now and not showing any daylight in their wall of support for Cavanaugh at this moment because there's real concern. That if his nomination was to go up in flames that that could really demoralize the Republican base at precisely a time, the party cannot afford that to happen. Again, circle Thursday on your calendars. Rosenstein meets with President Trump about his fate in the administration and the future of the Russian best to Gatien. Blasi Ford Cavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary committee, it's going to be a blockbuster day in American politics that doesn't for this edition of the daily DC. Thank you so much for listening. Hope you'll tune in again right here tomorrow. So many people around the world depend on CNN's quality reporting. Now they have an incredible online store with clothes gear and gadgets. Right now you can get fifteen percent off your purchase, just visit store dot, CNN dot com. And when you're checking out into the code CNN podcast, just one word and get a fifteen percent discount. It's that simple that's store dot c. n. n. dot com.

rod Rosenstein President Trump deputy attorney general White House president Sarah Sanders Brett Cavanaugh CNN Brett cavenaugh Blasi Ford Cavanaugh attorney Senate Judiciary committee general Rosenstein DC Russia EMMY award Blasi Ford White House
Kavanaugh Speaks Amid New Accusations; Pres. Trump To Meet With Rod Rosenstein Thursday; Fate of Deputy Attorney General Up In The Air;

Anderson Cooper 360

48:15 min | 2 years ago

Kavanaugh Speaks Amid New Accusations; Pres. Trump To Meet With Rod Rosenstein Thursday; Fate of Deputy Attorney General Up In The Air;

"This is Mark Edwards. I'm the weekly host of progress news network. It's brand new. We've just launched on Facebook where daily news broadcast at strives to bring you facts, not fiction, no fake news, just facts. Our mission is to open dialogue with you. The viewer. So search for us on Facebook, progress news network, you could find me there join the conversation about what's happening in American politics every day, progress news network, real news for fair-minded Americans. Take one last ride around the world, the EMMY award winning Anthony bourdain parts on. Now the final episodes chairs Sundays at nine on CNN. Good evening. A second accuser emerges and the bread Kavanagh confirmation fights sort of questions about the specifics of what she is alleging and her memory of it. The New Yorkers Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. Did the reporting Ronan Farrow joins shortly tonight on top of that, there's the question of whether the man overseeing the rush investigation. We'll even have a job any more and why if deputy turn, general rod Rosenstein has gone some folks including our own Jeffrey Toobin say, could spell the end of the Muller investigation. So there's a very big night ahead. We begin with the supreme court nominee ahead of crucial hearings going on national television in this case, Fox News to defend himself against allegations of wrongdoing. I'm not gonna let false accusations try boss out of this process and. We're looking for a fair process where I could be heard and defend the my integrity, my lifelong record, my lifelong record of promoting dignity inequality for women. Starting with the women who knew me when I was fourteen years old. I'm not going anywhere stretch cavenaugh with his wife by his side. He said, he's being wrongly accused the truth is I've never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or otherwise. I am not questioning and have not questioned that. Perhaps Dr Ford at some point in her life, we'll sexually assaulted by someone in some place for what I know is I've never sexually assaulted anyone. Let's get perspective from one of the senators who may get vote on judge cabinet. I spoke with New York, Democrat Kirsten, Jill brand just moments ago. Is there a first of all I want to get your reaction to judge Cavanaugh said tonight because this is the first time obviously we, we've heard him defend himself publicly. Well, Fox News interview is not the same as an FBI interview, and if he's willing to talk to Fox News about his views, I don't understand why he's unwilling to talk to the FBI so they could do a proper investigation. He said over and over again, he wants a fair hearing will a fair hearing means you have that investigates the facts establishes a set of facs that interviews not only Cavanaugh corroborating witnesses and then have a hearing where it's not just a he said, she said scenario, but a scenario where you do have people who have knowledge of these events. I'd like to hear Mark judge testify under oath, not only with the FBI, but any hearing I'd also like to hear from the therapist, have our producer notes from Dr Blasi Ford's husband from her friend and other crop rating. This is with the second allegation. At this point, though, it doesn't seem like any of those things are going to happen. Certainly know FBI further background investigation, no other potential. Mises or potential testimony. Do you think. That that by doing this interview, it gives judge cavenaugh some sort of an advantage going into Thursday, putting his side of the story out there. I know he's entitled to tell a story, but he kept asking for a fair hearing and the only way to guarantee a fair hearing is with the FBI to do a thorough background check which now is not a complete background check because there's two Allah Gatien's that have arisen since they finished it. Second, the only way for a fair hearing is if you do call other witnesses who have knowledge of these accusations. The minimum that was done with a Nieta hill isn't even being done here. They had an FBI investigation in that hearing and they had twenty over twenty witnesses to tell their version of events. And so honestly, I don't understand how he could say to the American people. He wants a fair hearing, but then not actually be interviewed by the FBI. Watson is interview is not the same thing. I wanna play a short clip from the interview and just have you respond. When you hear senators, who on the committee Senator maisy Verano and then you hear from others, you know the New York Senator gillibrand. She says, I believe, I believe this woman, I believe all of them, they're credible, and we all have to believe them when you hear United States, senators who are making judgments, final judgments, what does that make you think about the presumption of innocence in this country? America, we have fairness, we hear from both sides. I've spent my life in the judiciary that orange initial system part of the judicial system. As I've said during my first heat, my hearing was processed protects you. That's what judges believed. That's what our system is built on the rule of all about fair process since you were referenced. I wanted to be able to respond. I've heard from both sides and I believe Dr blazey Ford and I believe miss Ramirez, both of their stories are credible unlike his where he wouldn't actually answer the question or say why he. Wouldn't be interviewed by the FBI. That's not the response of someone who wants to plead his innocence. I believe both of these women because there are corroborating witnesses who have testimony that is relevant to these accusations. Dr blazey Ford told her therapist five years ago and her husband. She told a friend a year ago. She told her reporter before Cavanaugh was named. She's already submitted to ally detector test, and she's asking the FBI to do the investigation. That to me is credible. Those are the hallmarks of truth, and then you have all this other information that's been divulged by Mark judge about his heavy drinking about the books about what. Judge Cavagnaud wrote in his own yearbook. I would like questions to be asked about these very issues because these are relevant facts of the time that the FBI is not investigating. Is it relevant? That professor Ford did not tell anybody contemporaneous -ly or even for years afterward? Well, Anderson if you know anything about the history of trauma, this is normal. This is exactly what happens if you undergo this kind of traumatic event as a teenager as a child, rarely. Are you going to tell your parents because you'll fear you'll get in trouble your fear that you will be blamed? You feel guilty if you badly feel like you did something wrong. And so oftentimes they will certainly not tell their parents and may not tell anyone for years even decades. That is the hallmark of truth in a sexual assault survivor. And this hearing should also include experts to inform the many senators who may not have any knowledge about how trauma effects a witness and why these things come out over. Time. The majority leader McConnell today had very harsh words for how Democrats have handled this given that they knew about some new Ford allegations for weeks. Should your democratic colleagues have handled this differently? Could that have avoided their showdown in the final days that we're seeing now I don't see how you have a a witness who has recently come forward as most recently as yesterday. You have another witness who came forward last week you have women are telling these stories about what happened to them and credibly accusing judge Cavanaugh of violent behavior of sexual assault of of behavior that is disqualifying, but Sinn Fein signed did know about professor Ford earlier. Yes. The professor Ford very specifically asked to keep her name anonymous and she did not want to disclose identity. She just wanted Senator Feinstein to be aware because she was concerned. But when her name started to be leaked, other people were telling her story. She decided to tell her story herself and that is her right? So there was nothing that could have been done. Before this time because she chose to be anonymous. You mentioned the new allegations by Deborah Ramirez, should Judd cabinet will be questioned about those claims on Thursday considering that she has now will not be at the hearing to provide her account of what she says happened? Deborah Ramirez, again, has asked the f. b. i. to investigate her allegations from the New Yorker piece, you have a a witness from the time, say, he's one hundred percent sure that he learned about the relevant facts of this incident either the same day or the day after. So you have a corroborating witness. Those witnesses should be called. They should be allowed to be testified. Deborah Mira should allowed to be heard. But again, she's asking for the facts developed by a nonpartisan professional investigative body, the FBI and. What does the White House have to hide? What does just cavenaugh have to hide? Why will the Senate Republicans not allow a fair process? One that was even followed in the Nita hill hearings, which are largely considered to be low moments of the US Senate. And so it's shocking to me that they're unwilling, unwilling to do the basics to have a fair hearing to get not only crop rating witnesses to testify. I have Mark judge testify under oath and to allow both of these witnesses to be heard sooner. Children producer John, thank you. Thank you joining us. Now, political analysts, Cureton powers and chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin and Kerry Severino chief counsel and policy director at the judicial crisis network which is supporting judge cavenaugh cures. Clearly Judd, Kavanagh's categorically denying all the allegations. Does it help him or hurt him going into Thursday? Do you think to have done this interview? Well, I think it will help him with the people that they were targeting, which is the base. And so that's why they chose Fox News. They knew it would be an easy interview and. Would be sympathetic interviewer, which it was. I actually don't think he did that great of a job. If you're just an objective observer, just repeating over and over that you want a fair process, but not really answering the questions. I, I don't think necessarily bolsters him, but for the audience that they wanted to reach. I think it will have its intended effect which is to portray him as somebody who's being persecuted and and it will rally rally the troops around him. And that's what's really has kept the Republicans on track is this fear of the base not turning out in the midterms because they're angry that that they that they're not moving. If if they don't move forward with this nomination carry, one thing that Kevin, I didn't say that interviews that he'd welcoming FBI investigation into this continuation, the background check, wouldn't you think he would want that? If this is all this mirror campaign as he says, just to fully and completely clear his name, what he's any wants is a hearing and this investigative process he's been going through for the last week. There's nothing magical about. The words f. b. i. in front of it, we have a Senate investigation process that is exactly what happened after the needed hill allegations were made public as well. The Senate has interview all the things Senator gillibrand said she wants to do the Senate Judiciary committee has been doing interviewing judge cavenaugh, interviewing the witnesses. They've been trying to get paticipation by Dr Ford. They've been trying to get by the Senate Democrats. So things like interviewing therapist that would be great. She would have to participate to do the proper waivers to do that. She has been completely stonewalling them in terms of even turning in the the, the material she needs to prepare for the hearing. And the Democrats have been been not not doing their part was that why not have them then testified hearing, well, they, they would like to take the evidence first before the hearings. If you have a, if you had the interviews under penalty of felony, you may not need to bring everything everyone in the hearing. Dr Ford herself said, she doesn't want this to turn into a circus she's trying to they're trying to or some of those desires. Now, I know she would like to bring certain witnesses, but the the the interview is don't get to pick and run the entire process. They've said, we think it's going to be the most dignified. If we can have the two main people here and then have a outside counsel having doing doing the questioning. I think the real problem here is that we have a pattern of every everything is not as turning these uncorroborated allegations to simply discredited allegations. Everyone who said they were there. She said, was there says it didn't even happen. There's not one that actually is not what they've said. You guys have to stop saying that they didn't say it didn't happen. They said they don't REM. Member it, and there's a very big difference between someone saying something didn't happen, and they don't remember it, especially when Dr Ford herself has said she didn't tell them. So why would they know about it? So the idea that they. The party that she claimed that happened keeps saying that's different that Kerry keeps saying that this is a real investigation being run by the judiciary committee. It's not it's a kangaroo court because the committee staff that is in so-called doing the doing these so-called investigation, their job is to get bread. Cavenaugh confirmed, Chuck Grassley staff's job is not to do an investigation. It's to get Kavanagh confirmed. So the idea that they could do a fair investigation is just absurd. Zehr. As well. The who is inviting. I'm sure that was a real. I mean, you know what normally happens. That's an hour. You know, that's not that is how. For is the is the f. b. i. does an investigation. That's why they have access to the FBI. They don't want the FBI. They wanna keep doing it their way and they don't wanna call evidence. I mean, this is they don't want to call other witnesses because that would complicate the matters. The matter here the way we do to determine facts in any sort of proceeding, whether it's legal or political is you try to get corroboration or the absence of it for the people whose testimony is at issue. There's going to be no corroboration here because the the majority, the Republicans, they don't want to have Mark John the witness for her to bring in the evidence. She wants to see. They said, we will interview the people you want. If she wanted to have have have her therapist speak to the judiciary committee, they have. They have invited her to those two to to certainly at least be questioned, and they are not. To testify publicly under oath this under penalty of felony. There's there's a jail term. Much different publicly on television in front of everybody. Well, I the that it's possible that we have a leader process doing that. I'm telling you what the question, if you want an FBI investigation. This is good quivalent process in which you have to testify under. Just don't have an answer. That's a great if openness and transparency is the is the why not just have other people testifying as well. Judge Mark, John, Mark, judge the therapist just I, I don't quite understand why. What's the property? Any help you out Anderson? They don't want Mark judge to testify because he's not going to be helpful to them. I think it's very obvious in the New Yorker article. His ex girlfriend from Catholic university of three years spoke out reluctantly because she said Mark, judge has been lying about what the culture was like at Georgetown prep, which any person who's actually sentient knows. Because if you look at the yearbooks it's quite clear what was going on. We listened to comment on this interview just claiming he's this. This disturbed going choirboy just studying all the time and doing all these things when in fact, when you look at his at his yearbook, that is not quite the picture that is paid and let me just say, I don't think there's eating wrong with that. I don't think that if he was partying in high school, that's a problem. The. Problem is that he's lying. And if he's lying about this, what else is he lying about? And why won't they have Mark judge testify or at a minimum, send the FBI put him under oath and question him. I know he's going to say, oh, he did a statement and that's threat of perjury. Not a statement that that basically says, I don't remember anything, but questioning you have all these things about Georgetown prep and yet, and also how about the fact that Brett common Kavanagh's college roommate is on the record with his name saying he, he frequently saw him incoherently drunk, and yet we listened to about how all he did was go to church. These. He's welcome to submit that to the Senate Judiciary committee again, under penalty of felony. The person who was at issue here is nine money question. It's it is Brett Cavanaugh and he is going to have the opportunity to testify under oath. So we'll Dr Ford. This will be an opportunity for them both to be heard. Other pair with knowledge, both favor of George cavenaugh and in favor of of professor Ford or MS Ramirez, why not have them testify? They they. They are welcome to submit statements to the committee that's under penalty of felony. To do. So it's hard for them to complain. The process hasn't been even just that it would be too long. Is that your? I don't understand what the just logically Senate Judiciary committee's call how to run their hearings. Frankly, the Nida hill ten, Thomas hearings turned into a bit of a circus. And I think America's saw that and was discussed. They're having a professional ethics crimes. Prosecutor asked the questions because they don't want male men Republican men to ask the questions and have a look bad, doesn't that give it the aura of of a court? And why not then have actual people with actual cooperation or note in corroboration called in to testify anyone who watched the last round of hearings and who watches Senate hearings regular recognizes that having a professional investigator is going to make things cleaner and more coherent major trials in the past have had that the Iran contra investigations the the Waterhouse hearing or the the, the, the whitewater. But there's another Watergate was months long and was took a long time. I mean, you can't compare. Where the Watergate hearings Iran-Contra two, this Ganyu apps. Absolutely. They're, they're, they're important. Hearings is this is this is something the Senate. If you're a committee does it's something that that, for example, Senator Collins said both sides should do. I think that would be much more Cleveland, coherent testimony. I know the twenty twenty candidates in the Senate Judiciary committee would rather be doing the question themselves, but I think everyone who's watched hearings degrees having a single experienced in question or doing on either side would make from a better process. Professor Ford, but Jeff. Yeah, I think there's something bleakly amusing about the fact that the Republicans on the judiciary committee don't trust themselves that that they won't embarrass themselves by asking questions that they feel they are such sexist. It'll just come out if they are allowed to ask questions so so they'll bring in an experience lawyer, which I don't think is a terrible idea. Actually, I think that's fine, complaining and asking questions, and then they say, you know what? You're right. Let's have a woman ask questions, and then you fault them for that. Honestly. Here's it's poignant th no, but the the point is not who's asking the questions. The point is who the witnesses are, and there are only two witnesses and that's the problem. All right. Here's empowers, Jeff. Toobin carries Severino appreciate the discussion more now on the New York or article in the second accuser. We'll speak with one of the correspondence Ronan Farrow when we come back that one of the writers of the article later is rod Rosenstein done as deputy attorney general. What's next for the Russian education? If he is breaking news on its fate and his head. If you owe ten thousand dollars or more back taxes to the IRS call civic tax relief for free tax relief information. You may qualify for new relief programs to have your past due taxes, forgiven civic tax relief can help protect you from the IRS. Stop the added fees in wage. Garnishments finally break free from the IRS. See what new programs you qualify for time is limited. Does information is free. The consultation is free call. Now civic tax relief. Special tax hotline can help you discover all the relief programs. You qualify for free just call eight hundred four seven zero four eight eight one. That's eight hundred. Four seven zero four eight eight one. Don't wait call eight hundred four seven zero four eight eight one. Wreck cabinet calls the allegations against him, smears pure and simple. He denies them playing in simple. Now whatever you call them, they are growing. A second woman, Deborah Ramirez has now come forward alleging inappropriate sexual behavior by judge cavenaugh when they were both in college at Yale, she tells her story to the New Yorker Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. Did the reporting Ramirez told them that she was initially hesitant to speak publicly partly because her memory contained gaps because she'd been drinking at the time, the alleged incident. Again, judge cavenaugh flat out denies it. CNN is not independently confirmed the New Yorkers reporting. Additionally, MS Ramirez, two attorneys had not responded to CNN request to confirm the account. You gave the New Yorker despite multiple communications with both of them. They have repeatedly declined to comment on the record about whether her allegations that breath cabinet, exposed himself to her as accurate by repeated calls texting emails and an in person conversation without said, the New Yorker Ronan Farrow joins us now Ronan thanks for being with us to people who haven't read the article yet. Can you just explain what you're reporting is on on MS Ramirez? What. Allegation is. Certainly, she alleges that at a dorm room party when she and Brad Kavanagh were freshmen, he exposed himself then attempted to force his penis into her face, and she has vivid memories of moments of that. She also was extremely cautious as you pointed out. She pointed out wherever she felt there was a gap in her memory did ever level of alcohol consumption. She took days to decide whether she wanted to go out and take this extrordinary step of throwing herself into this crucible of partisanship that she is now in the center of. And she also said repeatedly that she wanted to be fair to judge Cavanaugh that she wanted to carefully consider what she was going to say and how before she did. So in terms of her motivation for speaking to you, as you said she didn't want to at first? Correct. And she, she, she had doubts about her own memories. She had questions about correct. She wanted to take as much time as she needed to come to a place where she was certain she wanted to up enter life for this. And that did include looking at every piece. Of this that she had vivid memories of the voices. She heard the faces she saw and really making sure that there was no doubt in her mind. And until she decided there was no doubt she didn't want to speak publicly. And what you pointed out is often lost in the conversation here I think about both Dr Ford and also about MS Ramirez. These are not women who came out publicly of their own volition. These are both cases where the Senate began looking at this Dr. Ford sent a letter, but she intended that to be anonymous. Initially. When we first reported the details of her allegation, we kept her name out of there at her request. But this story became huge and it was out of her hands and she felt she had to speak. That is also the case with MS Ramirez. She was not connected to the individual who I reported this to the hill. Those reports came to the hill, but through other individuals in this class who were all talking about this story dating that to win the nomination happened not after Dr Ford. So there were other individuals who were freshmen at Yale, I guess, at that time or add yell at that time. And I think we're talking about eighty three. Eighty four memory serves me correctly. Any who Eighty-three who had heard about this incident at the time. Exactly. So, so you know, obviously with all of these stories, we are extraordinarily careful. Judge Cavanaugh deserves fairness. The alleged survivor of this incident deserves fairness. That was her request and it's always our commitment. The last story. My co author, Jane Mayer, and I did was on Eric Schneiderman a prominent democrat, and we use the same Karen caution there. In both cases, you look for things like where people told at the time sexual assault is difficult to report on, partly because either there is often no one in the room or in a case like this, the individuals alleged to be in the room were largely participants in the alleged misconduct. They were people who were in her recounting of the events egging Brett Cavanaugh on. And those individuals have signed a statement saying, you know, they're, they're defending him. That said, there were other people who heard about this at the time. There was an individual who is on the record. In this piece saying by name, I saw a woman crying and recounting details of this incident at the time. And that woman in MS Ramirez recollection is her there's an indoor. Who said, one hundred percent. He was told this fact pattern right after and this is someone who was not in contact with MS Ramirez independently. He came to us and recounted that your pieces obviously come under criticism. So I want to go through some of it. What's your best understanding why it took her six days after being contacted by the New Yorker before she would actually name bread cabinet was the person who allegedly exposed himself to her. And apparently this was only after conversations with her attorneys and and you know, she, she waited six days to actually name cabinet because tonight on Fox News, cavenaugh son a New York Times report that said, MS Ramirez had recently contacted former classmates and told some of them. She wasn't sure it was cavenaugh. Let me take that. I with the second assertion. It's absolutely not the case that the New York Times rejected or passed on the story that's been a conservative talk in point today, simply false dean, Becca, the editor of the New York Times came out and said that that was false that they weren't questioning this reporting. What did happen is they aggressively pursued this story to the very end of the reporter made many requests from his Ramirez, and she decided not to cooperate with them because she was already working with reporter and she felt comfortable doing this carefully with one outlet that's perfectly fair choice in terms of the period of time in which she considered whether to come forward, it cuts both ways certainly were up front in this story about saying, this is an incident that involves a lot of alcohol consumption. She is up front and saying that she wanted to take the time to consider whether she was absolutely confident to a point where she knew this would rip apart her life and she would be the subject of all of this partisan sniping that you've seen today. She in the end, decided she was that sure. I would just say that that is a typical kind of process for women coming forward. In the stories that I've done about difficult stories of trauma, which are often affected by factors like alcohol, like the age of the allegations. And what about the the assertions night by by judge cavenaugh. He's had a repeatedly tonight in that interview that the New York Times had had, and the New York Times is reporting that MS Ramirez had talked to a former Yale classmates and to some expressed saying that she wasn't sure if it was cavenaugh. We disclosed a very similar language in our own piece that we had called dozens of individuals. Certainly that she was talking to people during this process of considering her recollections carefully is not at all surprising. And I think is indicative of her level of caution here. Anderson ruin. Appreciate the reporting. It's in the New Yorker online. Ronan Farrow. Thanks very much. I was a pleasure coming up. We have breaking news. It could get us one step closer to knowing the fate of a key figure in the rush investigation. The question is, will deputy attorney general rod Rosenstein still have his job at the end of the week. My name is Paul Shirley, and I've gone on a lot of dates. I've noticed something on these dates. I often find myself telling the same stories stories about my mother teaching sex Ed stories about playing college basketball stories about playing in BA basketball and almost dying in the process. We all do this. We tell stories on dates because dates or when we get to explain where we've been and what we've seen in why we think like we do my name is Paul Shirley, and I hope you'll check out my new narrative podcast stories I tell on dates, you can subscribe for free on apple podcasts or wherever you find your favorite shows. There's breaking news tonight in a story that's been generating conflicting headlines all day long concerns, the fate of deputy attorney general rod, Rosenstein, and by extension, perhaps the fate of the rush investigation comes after that report last week in the New York Times about Rosenstein discussing taping the president and enlisting cabinet members efforts to remove him under the twenty fifth amendment going to today Rosenstein was thought to be on thin ice earlier today. It looked like the ice was cracking now yet another story and she McConnell joins us with the latest. What are you? What are you learning tonight? Well Anderson we, we understand that since this story broke on Friday about rod Rosenstein, you know, secretly offering to record the president invoking the twenty fifth amendment and trying to get that conversation starter behind the scenes in early 2017 that ever since that story broke, he's been talking about this with the chief of staff. John Kelly. He's been talking about about this with the White House counsel Don Mcgann, but Anderson. I'm told by an administration official that one of the the hangups today in terms of letting rod Rosenstein go was the the fact that they believe many people believe inside the White House that it's the president who has to fire rod Rosenstein or accept the resignation of the deputy attorney general. Most importantly Anderson the White House says the president and rod Rosenstein talked about this story and the president acknowledged that earlier today and said, they're going to try to table this discussion until later on this week. Here's what the president say. With rod Rosenstein on Thursday. When I get back from all of these buildings, we'll be meeting at the White House and we'll be germinating. What's going on. We want to have transparency. We want to have openness and on the phone for meeting with rod at that. Now it's interesting Anderson. We understand that rod Rosenstein himself thought earlier today that he was going to be fired because of all of this. And you notice some of the caution and the president's voice, which raises the question, why all of this caution. While I was told by a source close to the White House earlier this evening, that one of the concerns inside the White House and among the president's orders is that this Rosenstein story, this is, you know, true or false, whether or not this is some kind of setup to trigger the president to do something drastic because Anderson as you and I both know if the president were to fire a rod Rosenstein, it would it would really prompt a whole series of events that the White House may not be prepared for it. Is there any insight into what may or may not happen on Thursday. Anderson. I think that is a is a huge question. And obviously, all of this going to be happening on the same day that the cavenaugh hearing is happening up on Capitol Hill. So we're going to, it's almost going to be like watching tennis looking up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. But Anderson I, I've been told by multiple sources that there is a very big concern that the president fires, rod, Rosenstein. It is going to energize Democrats in the upcoming bitter. Elections Democrats who were already motivated to vote and at the president was advised of this over the weekend that there is a real risk political risk to firing rod Rosenstein. He's already mindful of the fact that he could. He could really take shellacking in this upcoming bit term election cycle. And so that might be part of the reason Anderson why we have not seen the president who you know when he comes to the UN. He likes to use rhetoric like little rocket man while he's been very careful talking about rod Rosenstein today and for the last several days, Jim Acosta appreciate it with now CNN political analyst and your times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman also CNN cheap, political correspondent, Dana bash, what does the white. How's gain by having this or dragging out till Thursday or having it on Thursday, the person wanted to fire Rosenstein. He probably could have done it by by phone today and Quincy is going to be on Thursday. The same day is the cavenaugh hearings. Well, first of all, you're right. It's not as if the president is afraid to fire people from far remember how James Comey was fired. He sent one of his aides over to the FBI and comb. It was all the way across the country. TV fired on TV. Exactly. So that is certainly not a concern of this president. The biggest concern is, as Jim was laying out in his. We've been reporting here at San CNN all day about the conflicting and confusing advice and and points of view that the president and his top aides have about Rosenstein. Do they think that Rosenstein said what he said that the New York Times reported on Friday about wanting to tape the president about the twenty fifth amendment? Probably yes, they do. You know the whole question is whether he was being sarcastic or not my understanding and talking to sources that John Kelly is is done his own kind of internal investigation, and he is concluded that Rosenstein denial is weak. But the question is to what end to what end is Rosenstein going to get fired and the backdrop that we're up against the midterms, six weeks from tomorrow, the. The fact that is Jim was saying the Republican base and the democratic base are very focused on this issue is no small thing, which is why you're seeing uncharacteristic restraint from the president on the notion of getting an opportunity to fire somebody, he didn't like hasn't liked for a long time. And at least for now is not doing it. You have new reporting tonight, concerns she was Steph, don't kill it. So John Kelly is central to everything that has happened over the last couple of days because rod Rosenstein as as Donna said was the subject of some internal investigation that John Kelly did. This began Friday where he called road Rosenstein to the White House. Ask them about what had happened, told him to issue a better denial. If this was indeed not true, but they had some discussion about Rosenstein resigning and my understanding from two people who were brief in with took places that John Kelly made clear that he expected the president was going to be quite angry about this, the president for whatever reason, whether it is because of the political. I'm affiliations, which I do think is the main one, whether it's because he touched the hot stove once before by firing, James Comey, and what he got his a result was Robert Muller, and he doesn't want to go through that kind of an unknown again or whether it's because he's distracted by Brad Kavanagh or all of the above. He has not been extensively focused on this in the way that we have grown accustomed to him being. So now he might once he gets back from the UN general assembly on Thursday, any turns his attention to this one reason why we also heard what Jim heard, which is that a bunch of White House officials thought that only the president could accept this resignation. I don't know how much of that is true or how much of that is an interpretive dance around what the law says, so that none of them have to go get called before congress to testify about this is rod does get fired. And rod himself Rosenstein is concerned about having to testify about what he said. You know, a year and a half ago about the twenty fifth amendment and what he says, a sarcastic line about wiring the president. Imagine if you rod Rosenstein and you gotta wait two days for this meeting. Well, except that I'm confused if. I can be candid about his perspective on this. It's not, you know, if you talk to some people have talked to them, they believe that he has no problem. If he gets pushed out of his job, he talked to other people, they think he wants to stay. What will happen on Thursday is anyone's guess. People have spoken to around the president or not certain what will happen. They're not certain whether Rosenstein will really walk in and say, I'm resigning if so it's a little hard for the president to say, I don't take it, although he certainly could or will Rosenstein say, you know, the New York Times. Got it. Wrong, fake news and and try to assuage him and that way we just don't know. I mean, the largest of course is if rose nine is forced out, what does that mean for the molar pro? It is. It is the question, which is why we're all focused on a deputy attorney general, which is certainly not somebody who generally makes headlines or is even becoming a household political name. And the answer is that it is incredibly hard to believe in this is based on talking to Republican sources, not democratic sources, Republican sources that that they would allow on. Capitol Hill despite the fact that you haven't seen a lot of profiles encourage, I lately on this Muller prob- it's hard to believe believe that they would allow anything really big to change in terms of overseeing the Muller pro. Or of course, the the finishing of the Muller probe in general, there has been legislation languishing for a long time. Both parties have it to protect Robert Muller, unclear if that would happen. But I but I do think that this is something that is really hard to see changing. And I agree with Maggie when when the president has somebody face to face, it's generally harder for him to say your fire to probably be up to Rosenstein to say Mr President. I can't take it anymore. Bachelor, thank you make here. Thank you may as well. Thanks up next to that point with Rosenstein feature up in the air. The president's attorney is already talking about a quote tune out for the Muller or excuse me, time out for the Muller investigation time out his word. We'll hear that and get reaction from a member of the Senate intelligence committee in just a moment. Hey, it's Howard Beck, and I've got money mccutchen the NBA vice president of referee development and training on Bleacher reports. The full forty eight referee served the game, our players, our coaches, and our franchises are the game. And that's a huge distinction that I- referees understand and it's wonderful to serve this. This game is the best game ever invented to my opinion. And I, we love serving the game. So check out the full forty eight. Now on the Bleacher report app, apple podcasts, and Spotify. As we reported deputy attorney. General rod Rosenstein and the president are scheduled to meet on Thursday. The president's attorney jaysekulow is already talking about pausing the Russian Vesta Gatien. I think it's really important that there'd be a step back taken here and a review, and I think it's a review that has to be thorough and complete and review that has to include an investigation of what has transpired with all of these statements and all of these allegations going back to the Strachan page and Bruce lower, and basically a time out on this inquiry. Joining me now it's in a Ron Wyden a member of the intelligence community. What does it make sense to you of that? There should be a time out in the mother investigation? Absolutely not and look. The president's lawyer basically giving away the game at this point made it's very clear that this is all about interfering with the Muller investigation. That's what the tweet through all about. That's what all of the changes in the story over the last few months has always been all about. And right now, if the Republicans are serious about protecting Muller investigation, they ought to step up and back our legislation that would ensure Bob Muller is insulated from politics. If there is truth though to the reporting by the time, the Rosenstein suggested secretly recording the president of disgust, twenty fifth amendment, should he resign or be fired him, couldn't even the perception that he's compromised work against the special counsel's investigation. Again, the facts are unclear at this point Anderson, but. Here's my bottom line. If Donald Trump fires, rod Rosenstein for the purpose of protecting himself from the molar investigation that would represent high crimes and misdemeanors. Should Rosenstein leave knoll Francisco. The solicitor general would likely oversee the rush investigational. He's temporarily based on what you know about him. Do you have faith that he would protect the integrity investigation? I don't. And the fact is he has a long record of trying to inflate executive power at every opportunity that's a prescription for trouble with this president. There has been a push from Democrats for months. Now, as you talked about pass some kind of legislation protecting Muller protecting the investigation at this point. I mean, it doesn't seem like there's any real appetite on the other side of the aisle among Republicans to support that. I think it's unfortunate again today we thawed them make statements in other words, whenever microphone front of them and they say, look, we want Bob Muller be able to do is investigation, and he ought to have the opportunity to be independent. We appreciate it. But then when it comes. To passing legislation that would really put some teeth behind that rhetoric they aren't there. So what's your message the president tonight about whether or not he should fire Rosenstein or what would happen if he did my message to the president tonight? Is that interfering with the Muller investigation is the wrong thing to do. It's the wrong thing to do for our country. It ineffective says that the president is above the law and Donald Trump shouldn't go there. Do you think the having the meeting on Thursday is to distract from the capital hearings? My sense is today was really right out of the Trump playbook. Whenever they've got problems, they go out and create does some chaos. They create some distraction. We were getting reports on the hill that this was smoke bombed today to distract from the cavenaugh allegations. Again, the bottom line is a lot of us are very concerned about this. Bob Ma. Is really in a race against against time. It's the president should not interfere with this investigation Senator Ron, Wyden appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you coming up along those lines or Jeff Toobin has just been a piece in the New Yorker says, if Rosenstein is out on the molar invested investigation could be in his words kind of toes. He's back along with pre Perahera. I'll try not to sneeze during this next interview. Next. Soccer fans are you? Tired of missing? Great UEFA games, giving soul, crushing spoilers from friends, good news. Bleacher reports, new VR live that helps you wash all UEFA Champions League and wait for your openly gay funding because live should be live nowh- third-party sites, cramping, your style, scouring the internet for updates. Now with VR live super easy to get started, download the app to be our dot live. The more live over Edison in subscription purchase and additional terms may apply. We're talking about the fate of rod Rosenstein and perhaps the mother investigations, well or cheaply. Glenn is Jeffrey Toobin ponders this at length in the New Yorker. He's back along with CNN senior legal analyst and former US attorney print Berar suggest who will protect them other investigation Rosenstein resigns or as fired because Muller goes to Rosenstein for approval on things. That's right. And his replacement will be the person who supervises the Muller investigation. And the whole reason that Donald Trump wants rod Rosenstein out is that he has been too protective of the the Muller investigation. So it seems stands to reason that the person he puts in there if that person really gets confirmed or re really dinner, takes office will be someone less protective as a technical legal matter. It appears to be no Francisco, the solicitor general, and we'll see what his perspective is on this, but he has the right to fill that depth. Attorney general job and the the job requirement. As far as I can tell is someone who will not protect Robert Muller and his investigatory during an interview for the job of deputy attorney general, could the president asked the interview subjects, what they think of the investigation. I mean, he can ask anything he wants, I suppose he can. That would be a terrible idea. And the one thing I agree with Jeffrey on, you know what the president probably wants to somebody who would replace rod Rosenstein. But I do think it's a case. I don't know no Francisco, personally, but he has a decent reputation. He also has a reputation for believing in a little bit overweening executive power. But part of the reason we have Bob in the first place I think was that rod Rosenstein cared a lot about his personal professional legal reputation in the country which was very strong. And after he wrote that protect jewel memo that on the on the basis of which Donald Trump claim to fire, Jim Komi I think that route to, I know for a long time wanted to make things right and wanted to show that he understood what. The rule of law was about and appointed Muller and people in the department. I don't know no Francisco's. One of these people I suspect and hope that he is or anyone else is going to have some gravitational pull towards wanting to make sure that they don't become the person in history who shuts down an appropriate investigation. You know, whatever their know other proclivities are. So so I, I have some faith that they're going to be people who are not gonna wanna die in the sort of Donald Trump wanting to shut down the investigation Anderson. It's not. It's not just about firing rod firing, Robert Muller that is the most extreme step. And that certainly as pred- suggests would be a black Mark against whoever did it Rosenstein also supervised the his Muller's jurisdiction and said, you can investigate here. You can investigate here and Muller has been festivity about asking questions, and this is not something that's been public. We we only know bits and pieces that came out chiefly during the Manafort case. If there is. Is a new supervisor who is less protective of of Muller that person could limit Muller's jurisdiction in ways that we will not know until very long afterwards. And that's something that you know, it's not firing, but it could seriously damage the Muller investigation. There's also a question Jeff of whether Muller would make a public report and is that up to in this case, rod, Rosenstein well, you know, this has been one of the long-term mysteries. Everybody's been talking about the report, Muller will right. But if you look at the regulation under which Muller has been appointed, all he supposed to do is file a report, and it's not even clear what that report is supposed to contain and give it to his supervisor. It was rod Rosenstein and then he decides, does he give it to the congress? Does he make it public? That's another very important responsibility of whoever takes over this job. What happens to Muller's report pre? I mean, the prison obviously has made his displeasure about his attorney general. Very clear for quite a long time, and you know, there's wide speculation rumor the belief perhaps that after midterms, Jeff Sessions could be let go if that was the case, wouldn't potentially that have an impact on the molar investigation who regardless of what happens to Rosenstein. It doesn't have a direct effect because as everyone knows and this is the subject of the IRA Donald Trump just sessions recused himself, but a new attorney general presumably would not have the same too, so you can put someone someone himself, but then it depends on how long it takes to put someone you in. And the other thing is if you're on the cusp of firing rod Rosenstein and we'll see what happens with this meeting on Thursday, that's going to be very dramatic. I'm we'll see what happens with Jeff Sessions. You're going to have a vacuum of leadership at the top of the Justice department. That's a big last point I would make is you know a lot of with respect to the mother investigation, whether or not Muller is fired, and I hope he will not be a lot of the barns were already out of the a lot of the cows already of the barn. He's a farm analogy. You've never lived on a farm in clear. Shown your? Yes, I have. How does that go again the in the barn and they go out of the barn. And one of those cows to you is the southern district of New York and their investigations that had been parceled out to other places. And we also know that the New York attorney general's office that does not have to answer to any part in that Trump may issue is also on the case in various ways. So there are lots of things that are out there because Muller has been in business for a year and a half that no matter what happens at the Justice department. I don't think there's anything they can do about them. Really, I, I was going to respond to that, but I, I know pre has to get up early to start milking with that. That's the last farm. And now. Former Berar appreciate it. Thank you very much. Jeffrey Toobin. Thanks reminded obese full circle or daily interactive newscasts on Facebook picks him the stories that we cover. You can see it weeknights six twenty five eastern at Facebook dot com. Slash interesting Cooper, full circle news continues right now on a Hanover, Chris Cuomo prime time starts. Now, Chris so many people around the world depend on CNN's quality reporting. Now they have incredible online store with clothes gear and gadgets. Right now you can get fifteen percent off your purchase. Just visit store dot c. n. n. dot com. And when you're checking out into the code CNN podcast, just one word and get a fifteen percent discount. It's that simple. That's store dot c. n. n. dot com.

rod Rosenstein FBI president Robert Muller judge Cavanaugh Dr blazey Ford Brad Kavanagh US Senate Anderson Jeffrey Toobin Deborah Ramirez John Kelly CNN deputy attorney general Senate Judiciary committee Ronan Farrow Mark Edwards New York
Tuesday, September 25: Wait 'Til Your POTUS Gets Home

Start Here

21:39 min | 2 years ago

Tuesday, September 25: Wait 'Til Your POTUS Gets Home

"It's Tuesday, September twenty fifth and rod. Rosenstein. Wait, let me check. Yeah, he still has a job. We start here. With everyone in Washington, expecting him to get fired. The man overseeing the Muller probe, survives a trip to the White House. This is one of the strangest days I have seen yet at the Trump White House, but another date looms on the calendar, how we got here and how the dominoes could fall. Brett Cavanaugh says, forget the paper statements, but never sexually assaulted anyone a rare interview as skeptics swarm, his latest accuser and the storm was simple. It's the week after that's destroying their lives year. Ford. And my daughter's toys r. floating, we'll take you to South Carolina. We're waters are unbelievably still rising this morning. From ABC news. I'm Brad milkey. Let's get you up to speed for the day ahead. Are you hiring with indeed you can post a job in minutes set up screener questions than zero in on your shortlist of qualified candidates using an online dashboard. Get started today at indeed dot com slash podcast that's indeed dot com. Slash podcast. Ever since James Comey was unceremoniously fire as director of the FBI. The guy with maybe the most complicated relationship with President Trump has been deputy attorney general rod Rosenstein. He was appointed by Trump. He's a Republican and in the kind of accident. He wound up overseeing the investigation that could imperil the Trump presidency. The dramatic announcement in Washington attorney general Jeff Sessions stepping back from any investigation into Russian interference in the election. Rosenstein got the call. And since then he is balanced warm words for the president with a few -cially independent streak. Remember the time he threatened to resign rather than be blamed for Comey's firing all the while being unfailingly supportive of Muller's mission. Special counsel's investigation is not a witch the last week, the New York Times revealed something extraordinary. A memo written by acting FBI director, Andrew McCabe, describing suggestion by Rosenstein to wear a wire when speaking with President Trump the Cording to the memo. Rosenstein also apparently said he could recruit members of the president's cabinet to invoke the twenty fifth amendment and remove him from power. Secretary of state. Mike Pompeo was asked about it during a briefing with reporters here in New York. I've never heard anyone talk about a whisper about it. Joke about it in any way. ABC confirmed these details as well as memo's of a second meeting in which Rosenstein apparently raised the idea of wearing a wire again, sources, say some left the room thinking. This was a sarcastic joke, but McCabe they say, left that room thinking Rosenstein was serious, and critics of the president were fearful. Rosenstein was saying that report was inaccurate, but it wasn't flatly denying it. Finally, they said President Trump had a reason to get rid of Rosenstein and maybe install someone who's not such a fan of Muller will. Then yesterday Rosenstein arrived at the White House. Setting off a high stakes day of confusion, ABC's chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl is on the north lawn right now head, John, hey, what happened here? I got an Email from you in the morning being like rod Rosenstein is heading to the White House. He's expecting to get fired, but then within a couple of hours you were emailing. Oh yeah, he's shaking hands and sitting in meetings. I gotta tell you, Brad, this is one of the strangest days I have seen yet at the Trump White House, and that is really saying something. There was a report early yesterday in axios. The Rosenstein was resigning. I quickly found out it wasn't quite the case. What I was told is that Rosenstein was on his way to the White House expecting that he was to be fired. In fact, what what we learned is that Rosenstein had offered to resign over the weekend but could not agree with the White House on the terms of his resignation. So was refusing to resign some into the White House to meet with chief of staff expecting to be fired. He met with the chief. Staff, and in a very strange twist was walked out to his car. Chief of staff doesn't normally do that with people he meets with at the White House, shook hands with the Rosenstein and Rosenstein smiling got in the car and went back to the Justice department, still the deputy attorney general to the surprise of a lot of people. But Jonathan, just so I'm clear at this moment. He's still the deputy attorney general. At this moment. He is still the deputy attorney general. The president was asked multiple times the UN whether or not he was gonna fire Rosenstein. Meeting with rod Rosenstein on Thursday. When I get back from all of these meetings, we'll be meeting at the White House will be germinating. What's going on president is not ruling out firing him, but not saying he is gonna fire him. So once again, rod Rosenstein will come to the White House twice in one week, unclear whether or not he is to remain the deputy attorney general in the United States. Hold on. Hold on Thursday that is when Christine Blasi Ford is supposed to testify about red Cavanaugh is, is it super cynical of me to just think maybe this could detract some attention from all of that? Will it certainly going to be an interesting split screen moments in Washington, you'll have the man in charge of overseeing the Russian investigation coming to meet with the president, unclear whether or not he will be fired at precisely the moment we have what may be one of the most high drama and high stakes hearings. We have seen in a longtime on Capitol Hill coincidence. I don't know, Brad, I will say this the president is in New York. He is at the United Nations, General assembly and the first time that he could do an interview back at the White House or conversation back at the White House with Rosenstein would be on Thursday guys, a crazy week already, and thank God. It is outright. It's only Tuesday morning Donovan. Good luck. Thanks, Brad. So let's dig into this a little bit more ABC's. Mike Levin covers the Justice department for us, and Mike is all this started swirling yesterday. We get word that Rosenstein is expecting to be fired. What was the sense among the people you deal with in the Justice department? Was this a surprise? Was this like a Peter Struck scenario where everyone's like, well, duh, you say these things you're gonna pay a price? Yeah. This was a surprise to DOJ not only the way it happened, but also the timing of it. I spoke to some DOJ offers as as the news was unfolding and they were shot. I got one message from DOJ or a longtime DOJ, or that was just a bunch of question marks and exclamation points basically being like what is going on here. Many people inside the Justice department, well-placed people really thought that Rosenstein won't be leaving the DOJ until at the at the earliest through the midterms. So this was definitely a surprise, but also don't forget how we ended up here and why we're here. Last week, the deputy attorney general issued a number of statements. After those, I reports about what he allegedly said in those meetings with other DJ officials. His statements though never denied that he, I raised the issue of the twenty fifth amendment and identify vide- raised the specter of using a wire to record Donald Trump. He said he never authorized it that does not mean did not come up under his watch. That's right. He said that he never took steps to make it happen, but that's different than saying that he never even raised the issue. So rod Rosenstein we should repeat this still the deputy g. but if he is to go, if what would happen like gimme the scenarios? The real answer is who knows there's lots of speculation and discussion. But what I do know is that there is one actual plan of potentially many plans, but one plan that has actually been discussed is that the current chief of staff to Jeff Sessions Matt Whitaker would become the acting deputy attorney general. So take over Rosenstein whole job. Job, but then no Francisco. The solicitor general would take over oversight of the Russia probe. And the reason of that has to happen is that a person who is in an acting capacity cannot then take on new acting role. So because Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the Russia probe, the person in the deputy attorney general's role would be acting attorney general the person in charge of the Russia probe is the acting attorney general, and therefore that would have to go to know Francisco if not Whitaker becomes the deputy general yet. Apparently President Trump talked to Whitaker yesterday. So I think you see where I'm going here. What does this have to do with Robert Muller? Like what effect is this have on his probe? My true view is, is that as long as Muller is still there, it really doesn't matter who's in that deputy attorney general's role who's in that acting attorney general's role overseeing the Russia, probe robber mother does what he does. He keeps his head down and he's always just he just marches forward unless he gets fired, correct. If he's not bear that now, that would really change. But at the same time, you talked to people inside the Justice department and the FBI and they, they say that this investigation would continue. It's not like Muller gets fired, and everything ends this investigation, whether mother gets fired, whether Rosenstein gets fired. This investigation is going to continue. And yet at this very moment on Capitol Hill, Democrats are pressing the Republican colleagues to pass some sort of legislation that would make it illegal to remove Robert Muller from his spot. Mike Levin in Washington. Thanks a lot. You never see this when the Senate is deciding whether to confirm you supreme court nominees, generally stay silent, right? But yesterday Brett cavenaugh felt the need to come out going anywhere and do a nationally televised interview with Fox News. Never sexually assaulted anyone. I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter. And this comes, of course, is a second woman comes forward laying out her story of sexual misconduct by cavenaugh from decades ago. Debra Ramirez told the New Yorker magazine that in the early eighties when she was a neabry aided of the college party Brett cavenaugh exposed himself less than an arm's length from her face. She says, she has trouble remembering parts that evening, but says she will always remember him laughing standing over her buckling his pants as news of the incident raced down the halls, at least that's what she says right now. The New York Times said, while they were reporting out this story, some classmates said Ramirez called them up. An express doubts herself that this was definitely Cavanaugh and skeptics pounced Sotho and so on. Supported the New York Times refused to even run a story about it. It is highlighted just have difficult. It is to substantiate claims when alcohol or drugs are involved Ronan Farrow who co authored the story laid out his case on good Morning America. We wouldn't have run this if we didn't have a careful basis. If people who had heard at the time and found her credible, let's go to ABC senior national correspondent Terry Moran on the steps of the supreme court right now and Terry, such a different reaction from Republicans than they gave to Christine Blasi Ford, right? This response does not have that deference. It does not. And I think that they are already setting up the groundwork for rejecting her claims, perhaps even without a hearing because they don't find them as credible as Dr Blasi Fords. And to be honest, there are some issues around what she's saying that she has acknowledged. Deborah Ramirez has said she was in neabry it at the time. That her memory is spotty. She she doesn't have a full memory of the event, and I think that the combination of those things for Republicans, they said, we won't really be able to prove any of that since she can't even so we don't have to listen to her Democrats will say, you know, believe the woman. Well, that's not so different from Ford though, right? There are no witnesses coming forward there either, but, but you're saying the spotty memory is the dividing line here. I think so. Also the fact that she was working with Democrats on this issue, then the Democrats didn't even tell the Republicans and that has really raised the partisan tensions in what is already hyper partisan story. So I think that there are four Republicans indicators that this is if not political, something that has been fostered in a political environment and from someone who acknowledges that she doesn't have a perfect memory of this. And then it took a while for her to be comfortable and confident that she was remembering. Clearly that it was bred Cavanaugh. And I think that that is going to lead Republicans to say as that's not good enough, and they want to get him on the court, frankly, by the time, this court opens next Monday, and I wanna make it perfectly clear Mr President. Judge Cavanaugh would be voted on here on the Senate floor. But the reporters at the New Yorker magazine insisted they did fund corroboration while they didn't find I witnesses who put cavenaugh at the scene, they found people who went to college at Yale in that dorm coup. Remember the incident from that time who were even talking about on an Email chain before all. This happened this summer while Cavanaugh was being nominated people remembering you member Brett cavenaugh back in the day and this incident, and that was sufficient collaboration for the New Yorker to go forward and experts will tell you memories can be inflicts on things like this. That of course does not make proving it any easier bateria. I had listeners asking me if you're Republican Senator blind and cut your losses here. Like, couldn't you just bail on Brett cavenaugh right now and put forward an Amy, Conybeare it for the supreme court. Like why risk a defeat here with the midterms so close? Well, one, you know, Brad Kavanagh is really the golden boy of his generation of conservative lawyer. He is well known in Washington and much admired second, they don't want Democrats to get away with. They feel is a smear campaign, not an honest way of posing a nominee on judicial philosophy, but just trying to find anything to get in his way and third. And finally, they recognize that this process is not what it once was. It is now just as raw and partisan is everything else they've got the votes. They're looking at their polls. A Republican women are in large numbers staying with them. They're going ram, this guy through if they can. This true polling is showing us that your views on this or shaped less by gender than they are by your party Terry, bringing the facts. Thank you. Thanks, Brad. Next up. It took years for her to be heard now. Andrea Constand decides not to waste her breath on Bill Cosby. Start here is brought to you by indeed dot com. And when it comes to hiring, you don't have time to waste. You need help getting to your shortlist of qualified candidates fast. That's why you need indeed dot com. Get started today at indeed dot com slash podcast, that's indeed dot com. Slash podcast. The debates in the streets are over so are the references to his old show. Yesterday, Bill Cosby was simply a convict awaiting sentencing for aggravated indecent assault against a former basketball coach whom he drugged, and then fondled that survivor. Andrea Constand went through two trials and a litany of questions over her complicated relationship with Cosby afterward, ebony Benson, one of Cosby's representatives lashing out on GMA claiming the prosecution ignored evidence, and that five accusers of Cosby's should never have been allowed to testify an insinuated. They were making up allegations and yesterday on Twitter, she posted a simple bible verse, do not let the sunset while you are still angry, do not give the devil an opportunity ABC's Linsey Davis is outside the courthouse in Norristown, Pennsylvania, and Lindsey. We didn't hear anything from the others who say they're victims of Bill Cosby. We barely heard from the accuser in this case. You're right. So Andrea Constand took the stand maybe for all. All the minute simply to say, look, judge you already have my victim impact statement that I wrote. All I am asking for is Justice. As the court sees fit. Then her mother, her father and her sister all took the stand, read their victim impact statements. Then we heard from both sides. We heard the defense basically argue why Bill Cosby a now at eighty. One years old is not a dangerous man. He's blind and they're saying the chances of him having any kind of of future assault. Considering that there haven't been any allegations in the last fourteen years. They're saying, now that he's eighty one that's even diminished even further. But the DA's office is asking for five to ten years of state. Incarceration basically saying, look, just because he's old, he shouldn't get get out of jail. Free card. We on a lot of people were wondering if we might see a Larry Nassar kind of spectacle right with with dozens of women and members of their families testifying. What is the difference here? Just the judge. Well, the judge had ruled before that he wasn't going to allow a. National testimony outside of the accusers who participated in the first trial and then the retrial the prior bad acts witnesses, if you will. And I, I guess the reason is because Larry Nassar he actually admitted to some guilt Bill. Cosby has said all along that he's not guilty. And so to include those additional accusers wouldn't necessarily be fair in a court of law because you wouldn't be able to prove that they were in fact victims of Bill Cosby. But nonetheless, there are a lot of Bill Cosby's accusers who are here in the courthouse once again as they were for the first trial in the retrial air here for the sentencing as well as six of the jurors from that retrial there in the courthouse awaiting sentencing. And so what does happen next? Because I've seen people say that Cosby faces up to thirty years, but but you've been saying that is not going to happen. Well, look at this point. The maximum jail time would be ten years. Because all of those three counts apply to the same act. So we're talking about just a maximum of ten years, but the minimum is zero. So it is possible that he could continue on with the house arrest as the defense is asking for pending an appeal which Cosby his said, look that he is going to appeal, but according to state law that can't happen until after sentencing. But at this point, the judge also has to decide if he's going to classify Cosby as a sexually violent predator. That's the only other thing, and then he'll announce the sentencing Bill. Cosby is a sexually violent predator that decision could potentially come as soon as lunchtime we will let you get to it. Thanks, Lindsay. Thanks, Brad. And one last thing we're going to be talking about huge stories in Washington all week, but there are people who could not care less right now. They are too busy clearing out the wreckage from hurricane Florence. They are in our area on even though there was a mandatory evacuation that is just porter from Conway, South Carolina, and she says her house was actually fine. Single cut branches in Lynn things like that down at least it was the rain and wind weren't the problem that way back looking at how but a few days later down the street, they could see the water was still rising there river starting to rise around. And so on Wednesday with the rain, long gone, that is the day disaster struck for just porter. You're having to take a bow out to get their house Wednesday to get the rest of our belongings or what we could grab you to take a boat. Yes. Within thirty days. The river had basically shot up that are cards are no longer able to get through our house. So what's it like right now, if you've seen it very, very devastating on having you know, caffine your house and a disarray and your Ford. They're floating and my daughter toys r. floating daughter's two and a half. She can tell something's up. She does not know why they're staying in Myrtle Beach and mauve has not told her how bad it's become to go back to mommy, pow, mommy, daddy pal. She's to go back there, but we just kind of explained that, you know, this is our new home for a little while and just doesn't want to scare her. Plus she doesn't know herself yet eleven days. Eleven days after Florence hit the waters are still rising there. Now we have to wait for the water can even cry on the doctor noon. And then on what that craft happened. Then we have to wait for the water to fall. She says it could be another two weeks before they will step foot inside their home. In the meantime, the skies are clear and Myrtle Beach. In our thanks to just for talking to us during a tough week as her husband. Brandon has been checking on the house. They say, they will keep in touch. We will post updates on Twitter and Instagram follow us. It's start here ABC remember to start here tomorrow and for the very latest on the Cosby sentencing could happen today, stay plugged in the ABC news dot com or the app. I'm Brad milkey tomorrow. Are you hiring with? Indeed you can post a job in minutes set up screener questions than zero in on your shortlist of qualified candidates using an online dashboard. Get started today at indeed dot com slash podcast that's indeed dot com. Slash podcast.

rod Rosenstein Bill Cosby deputy attorney general Washington President Trump Brad White House Brett Cavanaugh ABC Justice department Trump White House Robert Muller Ford FBI president Brad milkey The New York Times James Comey Jeff Sessions ABC
Words Matter: Interview with Rod Rosenstein

Stay Tuned with Preet

1:07:18 hr | 11 months ago

Words Matter: Interview with Rod Rosenstein

"Welcome to words matter which Katie Barlow and Joe Lockhart. Welcome to words matter I'm Katie Barlow. Our goal is to promote objective reality as a wise man once said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion not their own facts words have power and words have consequences. Hey folks I'm excited to report that we have more new content for you. Cafe is partnered with words matter media to bring you the words matter podcast Co hosted by Joe Lockhart and Katie Barlow Joe served as the White House Press Secretary for President Bill Clinton and Katie is journalist and an attorney. Each week, they will bring context and understanding to the often fraught political conversations that dominate our national discourse. They'll be interviewing an array of guests including people who have made a great impact in American politics or who make it their business to make sense of what's happening in Washington. The episodes of words matter will be free for the next several weeks and ultimately will become exclusive to members of cafe insider. Today's guest is Rod Rosenstein. As many of you know he served as the Justice Department's Deputy Attorney General under president trump and appointed Robert Muller's special counsel to lead the Russia investigation and he's been in many ways quite the controversial figure. I. Hope You find the conversation informative and tune into future episodes of words matter. To become a member of cafe insider and get exclusive content including the podcast I co host with an milligram the United Security podcast hosted by Leeann Monica and Ken Wayne. Bonus material from stay tuned and more. Join US AT CAFE DOT com slash words and get two free weeks. That's cafe dot com slash words. And now onto Joe and Katie's conversation with former deputy. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Our guest today served as the thirty seventh deputy attorney general of the United States from April two, thousand seventeen until may two thousand nineteen prior to his appointment he served as United States attorney for the district of Maryland and at the time of his confirmation as deputy. Attorney General on April Twenty, fifth two, thousand, seventeen, he was the nation's longest serving US attorney. The Senate approved his nomination by vote of ninety four to six prior to his service. As deputy attorney general, he spent more than twenty five years as a prosecutor for the US Department of Justice Rod. Rosenstein welcome to words matter. Thank you Katie and Jerome Glad to be with you. And in the interest of full disclosure, our listeners should know that I've known rod personally, and my partner is worked with Rod and for Rod for the past several years. So just want to get that out of the way. It strikes me that you're one of the few people over the last couple years who hasn't done it media tour written a book. So I think our listeners would like to know something about how you got to where you are today. So can you talk a little bit about what brought you into the DOJ as a prosecutor and then eventually as deputy attorney general sure I'll be happy to Joe and You know it's interesting. You make the point about the book and the Media Tour because I can tell you the offers that people. Received write books are quite lucrative but decided that wasn't the path that I wanted to take, and that's partly a function of my history in the department had in law enforcement joined the Department of Justice in Nineteen Ninety following clerkship for federal judge I started out as a trial attorney in the public corruption section and the Justice Department and as a result of that job and other jobs that I subsequently took. Including serving in his socio independent counsel on Whitewater investigation, and then as a United States attorney. One of the most important things I learned was about the confidentiality of what we do in law enforcement. That is that when you have an allegation of criminal activity and you determined that it warrants investigation, you have a responsibility to investigate it, but you also have a commensurate responsibility not to talk about it and so in. The Department of Justice, what we learn and I learned this in both Republican and Democrat administrations is that when we have allegations to make we make them in court. We prove our case with evidence and witnesses before jury, and we try to keep our personal opinions out of it. So that's one of the reasons that I've for the most part refrained from making any public comments since I left the department. I agree with you. There I. Think I wanted the few White House press. Secretary who's not written a book because I think it makes it harder for future press secretary's for the president to trust them and confide in them So I, I, admire that. Speaking of my White House, the Clinton White House I know you were working as an associate independent counsel under Ken Starr you were gone before the Lewinsky section, but you were there for much of the Whitewater tell me what you learn during that process and how did that inform how you approached the duties you had as deputy attorney general when the president was being investigated. Whether number lessons, I learned that bore on the way I conducted myself in office and one of them, which is something that I know you appreciate well, is the disconnect between what's being spun in the media about any particular investigation and what's actually happening behind the scenes in the investigation, and often they're really just two different worlds because not not necessarily that. Reporters are purposefully trying to misrepresent things but they're dependent upon their sources and people who talked to reporters sometimes their second or third hand sometimes the firsthand but they always have an agenda and they tend to spin the information in a way that favors their personal agenda and so the stories that you read in the media about investigations about what's being done, who's Being, targeted WHO's likely to be indicted often bear little relation to what's actually going on behind the scenes and so that's one of the lessons I learned. Another one is that it's critically important for prosecutors to remain silent during their investigations and I think Bob Muller is a superb exemplar of that he and his staff often allegations of leaking in the media. I. Don't think there was any credible evidence that any league came out of Bob Muller his team and I think it's very important to do that. It tremendously frustrates the media because reporters obviously are dependent upon leakers to write their stories. But in the end although sometimes we have to take our slings at Taros. I think it's the right way to do the job. Yeah. They were many days when I wished that the independent counsel special counsel took the same approach is more because we had so many leaks and it had so much of an impact on the investigation that it was very hard to function during that time and I appreciate what you're saying there. It also has the effect jove raising expectations which I think is unfortunate but alternative of providing a running commentary about where the investigation stands and where it's likely to go I think is just intolerable because that would inject the prosecutor into that ongoing. Public Debate and so in Whitewater, you actually had a similar experience to what we face in the Russia investigation, which is that there were congressional investigations, ongoing and Congress. Of course, congressional staffers are not subject to the same confidentiality rules as prosecutors and agents. So there's a constant flow of information coming from them as well. The other thing is that every day you have a new story and it's critical for the folks we're conducting the investigation not to be distracted by those stories and to keep their focus on what is they're supposed to be investigating. So I want to delve a little bit more into the details of of your history in nineteen ninety seven when you joined the US Attorney's Office in Baltimore Maryland. I is in a USA an assistant US attorney than in two thousand and five President George W. Bush nominated you and you were confirmed by the Senate as the US attorney for the district of Maryland. But then in two thousand, nine something unusual happened or at least unusual by modern standards, you were the only us attorney President Obama retained when he took office, he initially retained several but but. You stayed for the long haul. Explain what usually with the US attorney's after a change in presidential administration and why you were kept on well, it varies. There are some presidents who replace or fire all the US attorneys immediately, it typically takes some time to get replacement selected and confirmed by the Senate Bill Clinton when he came into office in Nineteen, ninety-three fired almost all the US attorney's immediately or within a month or two of taking office. The Bush and Obama administrations retained some US attorneys for at least a limited period of time, and then of course. President trump went back to the Clinton model firing almost all the US journeys immediately so that the practice actually does vary nobody was more surprised than I about my remaining as yours turning the Obama administration part of that part of the reason for that is that I had been nominated to serve as a judge on the four circuit in two thousand seven. My nomination was blocked by the Democratic senators from the state of Maryland, Barbara, Makovsky, and Ben Garden. So I I did not anticipate that I would remain as US attorney in the Obama Administration but I. Was Honored and privileged to do the job because the principal, the Department of Justice, which I learned throughout my career both career and non-career positions persist through administrations, obviously their policy changes, but the principles of the department and the rules that we follow are consistent from administration administration. So it was a surprise to me that they did not replace me in two, thousand nine. It was a surprise to me that they didn't replace me in two, thousand, thirteen but It was a wonderful experience for made to serve through essentially at least parts of three administrations. And during your time you mentioned working in the public corruption unit. But also as US attorney, you prosecuted several high profile cases of public corruption, particularly police corruption when you were US attorney and had sweeping indictments of law enforcement officers at various levels but you also worked closely with local law enforcement to dramatically reduce violent crime in the area including particularly homicide. So with with all of that background and and your long history with law enforcement on both sides of the coin, I wanna ask you your thoughts on on whether there is a problem of systemic racism in police departments across the country or at least the ones that you investigated. There are a lot of issues in Baltimore Police Department systemic racism did not appear to be one of them and I think Katie you know obviously my. Demonstrates that you can prosecute corrupt police officers you can help to correct problems in policing, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to condemn police officers in my experience having spent thirty years in the Department of Justice and worked with Federal State and local law enforcement officers all over the country is that ninety nine percent of the police officers are honest. There people have great integrity. They're the kind of folks she'd want to have your neighbors and friends like in any line of work. Now, there are outliers There are folks who abused their powers. And people who abused citizens and we need to hold those folks accountable and that's one of the things we did in Baltimore Baltimore is a department that had some significant management problems and as a result of that, there were cultural issues within the department that resulted in a number of large-scale conspiracies which adverted to and so we rooted those out but I was always careful when we brought those cases not to condemn the entire police department because there are a lot of good cops out there who demoralized when they see that kind of publicity. And who are just as offended as as you and I are when they see misconduct by their colleagues. So. Right. Now, get into the trump administration trump was elected in two thousand, Sixteen Jeff sessions asked you to join the administration what was your connection with Senator Sessions AG sessions, and what connection did you have with Donald? Trump Well I had no personal connection with either one of them. In fact, I spoke to jeff sessions the first time when he called and invited me to come down and talk to him in his Senate office in late November of two, thousand sixteen and initially I didn't even realize I was being interviewed for a job. He told me that he was interested in my thoughts about the policies of the department and about how we can best achieve his priorities which included reducing drug abuse and fighting violent crime, and so I talked with them a fair amount about those issues and that was my. First interaction with the attorney. General. Obviously we had a lot of friends in common but I had no prior connection with them man by virtue of my experience in the department I. Not been involved in politics not been registered Republican my whole life but I not been active in politics. So I had not come across attorney general or the president in any of those capacities in fact the first time I, met the president was shortly before he was inaugurated, he came to Baltimore football game and I shook his hand before the game that was the first time I've ever met him. Given how political Washington is did you have any hesitation about jumping into main DOJ in a position that? As, much as you try to keep politics out of it, you could never completely do that. I had no hesitation about it joe and it's interesting issue I. Know There are people who speculate about the risks of getting involved in political office folks who say they wouldn't want to work in government in this administration or that administration. But. My view is there's a lot of good work to be done and ministration, and obviously whether it's your parties president of the other parties president, they're going to be policies with which you disagree nobody's a hundred percent in agreement with anybody's particular agenda. But within the department, we were pursuing what Jeff sessions described as a a mandate to enforce the rule of law to reduce violent crime and drug abuse to try to Hanson gration enforcement to support law enforcement. All things that I believe were were righteous goals and I was honored to be part of it. So, before you're sworn in as deputy attorney general or as Dag your soon to be boss sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation I think that was on march second two, thousand seventeen and your recent Senate testimony. You praised that recusals that was the right thing to do. So if you could explain to our listeners why the AG recused himself, why that was the right thing and what the Justice Department guidelines are on refusal and what you thought that would mean for you coming into DOJ. Katie I was not involved in that decision I had been nominated but had not been confirmed. So I was up in Baltimore doing my job and I learned about the recusals like everybody else did on television but my understanding is the attorney general consulted with the ethics. Department and as a result of his involvement in the political campaign determined that it was appropriate formed recused it was strictly based upon the rules and Jeff. Sessions is a roof follower. That's one of the reasons I thought do a superb job as attorney general because he obviously has strong political views you wanted to make significant policy changes, but he respects the rule of law and when he evaluated those rules and and realized that they called for his refusal, he felt it was appropriate to refuse and so I wasn't involved. In fact at the time I was preparing for my confirmation hearing and I. Had A hearing along with Rachel brand who was the associate attorney number three official in the department and as we were preparing for the hearing, we actually anticipated that Rachel get along the tough questions during the confirmation hearing but after the refusal everybody turned their attention to me so that at a big impact on the the nature of the confirmation process. So aside, then from from how he actually decided to do it, what are the rules that kind of require it? So the people understand what goes into that thought process and how that decision gets made. They're actually not very easy to explain which is why the department has experts to help you work your way through them. You Know Matt Whitaker faced similar issues when he became acting attorney general and it took a couple of weeks to work through and determine whether or not. There was a basis for him to recuse. But the the presumption when you're in these high level positions in the department is that you cannot recused your responsibility to do the job unless the rules call for you not to do the job, and so you go through all the rules there. There are a variety of different rules. There are bar rules there are federal regulations, and then there are department regulations and policies. And so with regard to the attorney general understanding is that the rule that applied there was that he'd been involved in the political campaign and therefore could not be involved in an investigation of the campaign. So that is my understanding about the rule that resulted in his refusal. So you are still working out being confirmed in your dropped into the middle of this. Let's talk a little bit about some of the things that actually happened. It's been reported that on May two, thousand, seventeen you in the attorney general were at the White House for lunch with white. House counsel Don mcgann. It was then that again reported that you learned that the president was planning to fire FBI Director James Comey I is that accurate? You don't have a calendar in front of me Joe but I believe it was a Monday and I think the eighth probably, right What was your reaction to learning that? my reaction learning. That was that the president has the authority to decide who he's going to keep or removed from these high level positions, and that's a matter entirely indiscretion the president. And apparently, you met later that day with the president did you discuss in any detail? Y. The president wanted to fire comey. The president has articulated of reasons why he was concerned about Mr wanted to replace them as FBI Director I. As you know, I wrote a memo subsequently we I. What I felt Jim had done wrong with regard to the Hillary Clinton investigation. The president's reasons weren't necessarily the same as mine but he he obviously had his own reasons and is reasons run reviewable. Now, the president has discretion to appoint attorneys general and Secretaries and anybody that he likes subject to Senate confirmation and he has the ability to remove them for whatever reason he deems appropriate. So that memo became quite significant and all the discussion around the firing of Toby and whether the president obstructed justice, can you talk a little bit about why he wrote it? Well I. Think it's already been explained publicly that I wrote it because the president asked me to write it and what's reflected in their Joe I would've written that memo for any president who asked me to do it out in the same Mo from her Hillary Clinton it's not a partisan mammal. It's simply an explanation of how Jim commes conduct. During that Hillary Clinton investigation was inconsistent with the principles, the department and it's ironic that people. Now view that obviously for it through a political lands but I can tell you in the fall of two, thousand, sixteen, my colleagues, the Obama US attorneys I was a holdover but my colleagues have been appointed by President Obama they recognize those same issues that I recognized a number of significant former officials the Department of Justice including former attorneys, general and deputy attorneys, General Express, their views, some of them in in op eds and it was quite clear that. the director combs decisions were inconsistent with department policy I articulated in which I think was two or three pages about a year year and a half. Later, the Inspector General Produce report that was several hundred pages and was consistent with what I had articulated because it was actually quite clear that the decisions that director Comey made and I think he acknowledged himself that they were inconsistent with department policy, but he felt that he was justified in dispensing with those rules. Given what you wrote, Do you think Komi should have been fired based on the memo not the politics and not everything that came afterwards. But given the mistakes he made you think it was right that he was fired. You Know Joe, I think. Having spent a career in the Department of Justice One of the things that I learned is that there are. Men The majority positions in the Department of career positions and a career position. You have due process rights. You have a lot of procedural protections and the right reasons after we are taking for any kind of disciplinary action including firing for political appointees there's no standard for hiring and there's no standard for removal. So ultimately, it's a decision and the president now many people expected that either Hillary Clinton Ore Donald Trump would replace Jimi after the election the president announced in late January that he had decided to keep him coming and that was. Fine with me that's the president's decision. The president decided to remove him. That was fine with me too. But the bottom line is that the director had violated those rules and that's a problem I. think it creates a problem that needs to be dealt with because we need to make sure it's not going to happen again and I'm quite confident that Chris Wray to the FBI is going to return to the traditional rules, govern the FBI, and so you not see him holding similar press conferences writing letters on the eve of the election. There's a lot of commentary at the time back and forth about Jim. Komi and and how he handled things. But for those who haven't read the letter, can you explain how James Komi broke with with the FBI and the Justice Department's chief of command and nonpartisan traditions in that investigation. Were, you've actually identified Katie two separate issues. The first is the chain of command that is the procedure for making important decisions in the department and the second or the traditions or underlying substantive policies I with regard to the chain of command. It's very important that people understand that the F. B. I. Reports to the Department of Justice. It's sort of like the military in the sense that had exercises a lot of. Authority, but it's subject to supervision by federal prosecutors in by the Attorney General. So the first principle is that the FBI director needs to respect the chain of command. The FBI director reports the deputy attorney general through the deputy to the Attorney General in the Obama administration that was Sally Yates and Loretta Lynch and Director Komi has explained he made the decision not to tell the attorney general and the Deputy Attorney General? What. He was going to say when he held that press conference announcing his opinion about the Hillary Clinton investigation that's a procedural violation. That's a lack of respect for the chain of command subsequently when the director decided to send a letter to Congress on the eve of the election announcing that he was reopening the Hillary. Clinton. Investigation. He did not follow instructions from the Department of Justice I believe he talked to a lower level. Official in the Deputy Attorney General's office went forward anyway in those instances if the FBI is going to take such dramatic step inconsistent with department precedent with a potential impact on the election, the FBI director has a responsibility fully brief the leadership of the department and make sure he or she has their approval because that's his responsibility. He is a leader, the FBI, but he's still a subordinate official in the Department of Justice. So. That's the procedural violation substantively with regard to the press conference number one, the FBI director should not be expressing his personal opinion about an investigation because the FBI's role in the federal system is to make recommendations to the Department of Justice and then prosecutors make the decision whether or not to bring a case, a win director. Comey. Went to the microphone announced that no reasonable prosecutor with charge the case He. was directly undermining the authority of the Department of Justice which had not yet. It's decision and had a right to make that decision independently in addition about he proceeded to lay out the evidence to criticize secretary, Clinton, and that's also a violation of a very important principle as I mentioned earlier, the Department conducts investigations and either we charge or we do not charge. There's no middle ground where we closed the case but chastise. The target of the investigation though if there were going to be a variants from that tradition, if director Komi felt it was important in this instance to break with that rule, he should have gotten approval from the attorney general but he didn't do that and similarly with regard letter he wrote on the eve of the election announcing the reopening, the Investigation Hillary Clinton that letter he wrote had a significant potential impact on. The election nobody can measure what if any impact actually had, but it's a very foundational rule that the of justice should be cautious not to do things that are going to be perceived as interfering with the election, and the truth is that there was no need to write that letter and should not have done it, and again, if you were going to do it, he should have gotten personal approval the Attorney General. Your memo specifically did not recommended coming be fired and I want to quote briefly from it. It says quote the F. B. is unlikely to regain public and congressional. Trust until it has a director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them having refused to admit his errors director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions. Do you believe the president made his decision to fire comey for the reasons laid out in your memo? Katie, I had only a few hours to write that. But I think it It fairly articulates my views as I said, understood the president was removing director Komi. It wasn't my decision to do so but I was articulating what I believe the director done wrong and what's unspoken in a letter. But what you ought to know is that I actually view Jim Komi as a role model in the Bush administration has many of our US attorneys dead. He'd been a federal prosecutor career prosecutors. In fighting violent crime he served as US attorney in southern New York where they had a great track record, white collar crime, and then as deputy attorney general for a couple years before becoming FBI director and everybody makes mistakes I think mistakes were significant but everybody makes mistakes. But one of the things are particularly troubling and it's reflected in there is that director Comey was unapologetic about? His mistakes and you may recall there was a congressional hearing a week or two before the director was fired in which he basically double down in effect said that he he would have done it again if he had the chance and I thought that was deeply wrong and I was very disappointed that director Comey was unwilling to acknowledge that the decision he made was a bad decision. and. As far as the question you're asking me the president made the decision to remove director Komen. I can't speak for the President Katie has to what was in his mind. I know he's articulated a number of reasons but ultimately, it's his decision and it's not reviewable. Surprised that the White House publicly released your memo that that very same day and used it as justification for Comey's firing. Everything that you right in government you have to anticipate is going to be released at some point and so I certainly didn't anticipate the memo would remain secret. I was surprised when the some of White House press folks released the memo and led the media believe that I had initiated this effort to remove the director, which just isn't how it happened but But as far as the substance of the memo, I wrote it with the understanding that it might become public at some point and and I stand behind and and as I said, I think most former officials in the department without regard to politics agree with the principles that articulated in the memo would not want to see a future FBI director make those decisions. So right. As a former White House press secretary I have insight into how they do things and why they do things and Sean. Spicer. was out that day and he said quote, it was all Rosenstein no one from the White House. It was a DOJ decision we know from your answer and from your testimony that it was the president's decision. So how did you feel being put in the position by senior members of the White House? Suggesting that well, saying outright that you had made the decision that the president had made the decision when you knew just the opposite was true. I think the problem Joe is you probably appreciate is that the deputy attorney general you ever responsibility from time to time testify before Congress and there are a lot of folks in the White House who talked to the media a lot but never testify, and so I anticipated that I would be under oath at some point and have to explain my role in the firing of Director Komi and as a result I was unable to endorse any untrue version of events I wouldn't have done in any way but my view is that it's wrong for the Department of Justice to do that so I was disappointed about that. My view is that the president has the right to make any decision you likes, and then they ought to be prepared to stand behind I had experienced myself when I was US attorney in the Bush administration of seeing a similar dynamic layout with regard to the firings of about six US attorneys you may recall that costs both the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Deputy Attorney General Palmer their jobs they had a perfectly lawful right to replace US attorneys. But what happened was the deputy attorney general went up to the hill. And provided reasons, it ultimately turned out not to be true for why the removals had been done, and so the lesson I learned from that which I think is only reemphasized by the Komi experiences that you can remove anybody you like but you can't be untruthful about the reasons why you're doing it. Yaron, shortly after that, the president will not television with Lester Holt and told the truth and said, it was because of Russia I mean, did you feel betrayed by the president and the White House? Well. I don't WANNA debate. What was the truth I do recall the president saying that and obviously that created a lot of concern the trail is not a relevant issue. It obviously created a lot of concern because it fueled a perception that the removal of the FBI director was in retaliation in some way for the Russian investigation and the perception that was part of an effort to end the Russia investigation, which was not my view. Joe I I had nobody told me that the goal was to end the Russia investigation nobody ordered me to end the Russia investigation and so that was not my understanding of why Director Comey was being removed. I understand that route. But as you've said I think multiple times. Here is the president's decision. He has the right and when the president comes out and says, I've decided this and this is the reason I've decided for. You have every reason to believe that and just put you in a terribly awkward position and I. I know at the time based on who you are. You're never gonNA say anything. So here we are now going to give you a chance to say something is there anything more? You'd WanNa say on that? I, don't think. So Joe I mean you know I think that The mall report obviously is the best public record about what happened around that period of time and I really don't have anything to add to it as I said I, the firing of Jim Komi in my view is the prerogative of the president. my memo accurately reflects. What I believed Jim Komiya had done wrong. It's corroborated by the report of the Inspector General, and so that's the record. It is what it is. Because of the and because of the subsequent interviews, the president gave and the circumstances of. The firing of Jim Komi became an important part of the obstruction case. That you consider recusing yourself and if you didn't, why didn't you? Well certainly considered it in the sense that I taught with the ethics expert on my staff about whether refusal was warranted and the determination was that it was not now in theory you could always recuse as a discretionary matter. You can decide that You don't want to deal with the issue and so you can step out but I I felt that that would be irresponsible on my part. No matter who Wound up in the line of fire. For this, it was going to be very unpleasant and so who I thought, it'd be responsible to me to the step out unless there were a legal justification for me to do it. So once the I discussed with the ethics expert and determined there was no requirement for refusal I did not recuse, but I would have happily if the. Determination had been otherwise, but I think part of the this impetus. This thought that I had obligation recusals fueled by misperception about what had happened by the thought that I was somehow trying to cover up for the president but there was never any inconsistency about the memo that I wrote in the reasons why I wrote it, and so I don't think any need for accuse lever rose. So, it's been reported by multiple news outlets that around the same time that all of this was happening that you were in a conversation and suggested wearing a wire to record president trump just tell us if you will what are the circumstances around that story and that conversation. The other but a lot of stories that have come out about that period of time and most of them are unattributed. So I'm not sure whether they're firsthand participants or whether they're people spinning what they think happened in these meetings. But essentially Katie, what happened was there was an ongoing covert investigation. The Russia investigation involved a classified National Security Investigation as well as related criminal. Investigations and in the course of those investigations Andrew. McCabe, as talked publicly about some of the things that happened in addition to that, there's a memo that Mr McCabe wrote that the department has released a declassified the majority of the investigation though remains classified. So you know someday if the department does make the decision to declassify the whole thing I'll be free to talk. More, broadly, about it but what I can tell you with regard to that particular issue is that Andrew McCabe and I worked together for a long period of time. We didn't always agree on things at the beginning of the investigation as you know, Andy surprise me with some information some things that he had done I determined that it would be appropriate replace Andy as leader the investigation not because I concluded that he engaged in this conduct I didn't at the time But because I believe it was a better for the integrity of the investigation to have conducted by somebody independent without the history that Andy had had with Jim. Chromium. And with the president and so two Andy May bear a grudge against me for that as well as the fact that he was subsequently fired. But but at the time Mr McCabe as articulates in his memo at Oakland certain investigations and I had a discussion with him about what investigative steps he wanted to pursue. He determined there was not a need to record conversations with the president either his or mind because keep in mind Andy's theory was that the president was trying to obstruct the investigation by influencing the FBI director, not the deputy attorney general, but the FBI Director and he of course was the acting director and a candidate to be the presidential nominee for FBI director. But the bottom line Katie is that no recordings were made. I did not intend. Record conversations with the president, but I should add if I believe that the president or anybody else was trying to engage me in criminal activity, I would have recorded them. I didn't need any McCain's permission to do that. The bottom line is that I just did not believe that obviously I knew the president's views about the investigation is very public about it but I never felt that the president was trying to involve me in any criminal activity. So, there is a a book coming out this week by Jeffrey toobin called true crimes and misdemeanors, and he quotes this back and forth with with you and McCabe. It is not sourced and we can all have our own suspicions about where the information came from but I'm Gonna I'm GonNa read it to you to get your gauge on on its accuracy it's quote. What would we do in an obstruction investigation in a normal case Rosenstein asked the group more or less rhetorically quote while the whole point is to capture their intent state of mind. We'd find an informant to wire up to get admissions. We could do the same thing here, and then tubing goes on to write quote then Rosenstein explained how the team might go about collecting evidence on the president. Quote attributed to you know one searches me when I go to the White House, he went on quote I could wear a wire and get admissions from trump no problem is that accurate? No, that's not an accurate quotation Katie and You know some of it strikes me as somebody else's reasoning rather than mine but but certainly the issue of how investigations going to be conducted was matter of discussion I. Don't know what Mr Mackay planned to do. I. Still Don't know what McCain is planned to do. He's talked about the investigation quite a bit, but he's never really explain what he would have done differently or what he believes should have been done in the course of the investigation but I believe we made the right decisions and I'm not gonNA argue about what words were used. Those are not accurate. But we did have a conversation about how the investigation was going to be conducted because that obviously was of great importance to me and ultimately would have been my responsibility so that part of it is accurate. But shift if we can to Bob Mueller, who eventually became the special counsel when you reached out to him, did you have in your mind? He might be the special counsel where you Looking to get some insight over who should run the FBI. What what? What was your thinking when you reach out to? Actually, both Joe we had you know there was a lot going on in the first couple of weeks of that I was on the job one of which was one important issue was that we needed a new FBI director and there was an urgency about finding appropriate candidates. Attorney General and I, and ultimately the president talked about mother for his advice and so that was one issue and I also asked director mother a couple of days before I appointed him. Whether he would be willing to serve as special counsel if I determined it to be appropriate and I made clear to him in that first conversation, I had not made a decision but. When. You're in a job like that, show you you you need to know what your options are and so I thought it was important for me to know whether or not somebody with the stature and experience a Bob Muller would be willing to do the job because if I were to appoint a special counsel, which ultimately I decided to do, I wanted to make sure that it would make things better not worse in terms of introducing conflicts, repair conflicts under the investigation and so obviously everybody on all sides takes issue with. Director Muller for one reason or another. That's the nature of the job but I believe that adding director Muller to the investigation and removing Mr Mackay from the chain of command at that time was the right decision in terms of promoting confidence in the integrity of the investigation. One of the things the president likes to say what he goes after Bob Mueller is the day before he was appointed a special counsel he came to the White House and using the president's word begged to be the new director of the. FBI. Was that your impression of what Bob Muller was doing that day. No Bob Mueller based on my experience he did not want to be the director of the FBI again, he'd already done it. He he does entire ten year term they drafted him for another two and based on my conversations with Bob. Muller at the time I don't believe he had any desire to be director again. So for you what was the tipping point I? Mean? Obviously, this was a a short period of time and there was a lot of pressure on you. What was the tipping point for you that a special counsel was needed? The decision to appoint a special counsel is a function of all the facts and circumstances at the time, and so it would be unfair for me to identify a tipping point as in one thing that mattered more than all others I sat down talk with my team and ultimately made the decision that based upon everything that had happened and everything I knew which included, of course, the ongoing criminal investigations and what I viewed as the most important issue was the Russian efforts interfere with the election, not just the two thousand, sixteen election, but ongoing Russian efforts. which I have every reason to believe continue today I had a responsibility to make sure that investigation was done at responsibility to make sure it was done properly with the maximum public confidence in the outcome and I determined that all circumstances the best way to get that done in a way that would allow people to have confidence in the results of was to bring in somebody with the experience and stature about Muller and to replace Mr McCabe and I still believe that obviously people can take issue with the outcome and the investigation I know there. Obviously. strong disagreements about volume to the obstruction portion of Mr, Mueller's report. But those important part of that report is actually volume one, and in fact, volume to largely concerned things that had not happened yet at that time and I believe with regard to volume one with regard to the fact that the the Russians did. Take active measures to try to sway American opinions and try to shake confidence in democracy and ferment unrest in America and number two that the evidence did not support a conclusion that participants in the trump campaign conspired with those Russians. Those are the critical findings of the investigation. So this wasn't your first experience investigating the executive branches we talked about earlier you served as an associate independent counsel under Ken, Starr Did you give Bob Muller any advice or guidance from your experience during the Whitewater investigation? Yes I did in two respects number one, the I really three respects one the special counsel is not an independent council and the difference is primarily structural that has an independent council does not report to the Attorney General, but there are other implications of that and one of them is that the attorney general retains the responsibility or case the acting attorney general retains the responsibility for supervising the special counsel and for being politically accountable for the decisions that he or she makes, and so I made clear to Director Muller that that was the relationship that we would have that. He was a subordinate official in the Department of Justice appointed a team of senior officials in the department both career non-career who spoke with Director Muller and his team on a regular basis monitor what they did, we submit all charges that normally would require approval of components the Department of Justice, the tax division, the division, the National Security Division we submitted those through the ordinary course for review and approval when appropriate, and so those rules had to be followed. I also explained director mother that the goal this investigation was to get to the bottom line quickly the bottom line being. Is there evidence that would support criminal charges against Russians who interfered in the election and number two? Is there evidence that support prosecution of people who conspired with them or who gave false statements and obstructed the investigation because a number of the open criminal cases at the time related to obstruction and false statements, and that's something that's really misunderstood. Many reports critiques of my role in the investigation described me as starting it. But the reality is that there were investigations ongoing. There were dozens probably scores of federal agents conducting those investigations and federal prosecutors in several offices were engaged. In the investigation and so what I did was tempted to corral all that gave it to somebody I trusted to review the evidence determine which matters warranted further investigation, which did not, and so the directions I gave the Director Muller Word to narrow the investigation to focus on the key issues the Whitewater investigation as you know went off in in many different directions that's not a critique of Ken Starr was just a very different model. The goal here was to resolve the core issues quickly to avoid getting distracted by things that we're not central to resolving those core issues. So rod the president tweeted more than two, hundred, Fifty Times about Bob Muller and his investigation. He called Mower dirty corrupt and conflicted called the investigation which onto hoax a scam. Do you agree with any of that. No Do you think that had any impact on the investigation. I don't believe it had an impact on the investigation and certainly had an impact on public perceptions of the investigation and I think that that's unfortunate but but the people who are conducting that investigation were accustomed to being in circumstances that were politically sensitive. Bob. Muller, like me had been around the department for Longtime. He seen other instances flare up. You know it's funny Joe some of the younger folks who work within the Department thought that we were in unprecedented times and obviously with the existence of the Internet, the president's ability to articulate his thoughts and immediately spread them to millions of people. That's that's a novel method but in terms of the the nature of the investigation and the pushback that we got you around the Clinton White. House and you're you're aware that the similar things happened in the Clinton administration going back to my experience joining the Department and Nineteen Ninety when Bill Bar was Attorney General of first time and nineteen, ninety, two and nineteen ninety-three. He appointed several special counsel to investigate sensitive matter. So these things do flare up from time to time and you need to make sure that the people that you're entrusting with these investigations understand that they're gonNA take some heat. And they've got to stay focused on their mission. Can. I stay on tweets just for a second. Is this a little off subject but the president has tweeted repeatedly over the last six to twelve months. That President Obama, let us spying effort against his campaign and committed illegal acts to see anything at your time at Department of Justice that indicated. President Obama had committed a crime. No I didn't Durham Dust Gatien's being on for some time and I anticipate that At some point we'll see the the results of that investigation, and then we'll hopefully put this entire issue to bed but but no I didn't see that whether you characterize what the FBI was doing as spying or not You know that may be a matter of interpretation but in terms of an effort to get information that could be used against the political campaign I did not see any evidence of that and I would assume you pay. Somewhat. Careful. Attention to the president's tweets since he was tweeting very often. So is that correct? I think it would be fair to say Joe that I was painfully aware but I tried not to pay too much attention. Do you think last question on this and I'll let you off the hook attorney general bar before Congress said that he wasn't aware of the president's. That very unlikely to me because his tweets were about DOJ, in the investigation. I did not watch shed general bars testimony, but I think it's credible. The bill bar doesn't follow twitter. So you know if the information came in his attention, presumably would be through a media reports or media briefings from his aid but. Certainly not following twitter on a daily basis. So. Let's go back in time just a little bit before the mall report came out attorney general sessions resigned in November of two thousand and eighteen at what point did your oversight of the Muller Investigation and while. Technically, my oversight ended then in a sense that the. Special Counsel reports to the attorney, General, the acting attorney general and the pond General Sessions Resignation Matt Whitaker was appointed Acting Attorney General and therefore became responsible for overseeing the investigation but number one. General Whitaker actually took a couple of weeks to clear the ethics issues until he fully asserted control and number two. I and my team had been managing this rating months and so we continue to serve to play a role there but but Matt actually appointed his own Stafford to oversee the special counsel investigation and so after the ethics was cleared, he was responsible for signing off on any final decisions. So attorney general bar takes over a really and special counsel mower finishes his report and the Attorney General took what a lot of people thought was an unusual step before the report was ready to be issued to the public, which again, he didn't have to do that. He held a press conference and released a four pays wetter summarizing the MOA. report that became a very controversial issue there. There are many myself included that felt like that that prejudice the report and that there was intent there by attorney general bar to before the full volumes of the report came out to create an impression about what was in the report were you involved in that decision and why was Attorney General Barred doing that? I don't want to speak for turning general. Bar I. Think he's been asked this at least one of the hearings and he's provided his own answers. Bill Bar makes his own decisions. I was certainly around the department and. I was involved in certainly consulted with General Bar and As he explained I agreed with the conclusion that the evidence collected by the special counsel did not warrant any additional prosecutions. Now, the decision about what to tell the public and whether they're hold a press conference. Joe. There aren't any rules about that. Right. The investigation has been concluded. The decisions have been made and Germany bar. made a decision that he should explain his views to the public and He had a legal right to do that and people have criticized him for it. people have questioned whether violates department policies I don't think it does violate department policies of a did the Inspector General would be able to investigate it, but that's a decision that general barmaid and I think it's important to distinguish. Oh, the role of the Department of Justice in a criminal investigation is to determine whether or not a prosecution should be pursued. You make that decision and in the ordinary case you close your files go home. This was an extraordinary case because upon making that decision the attorney. General. Had had decided that he was going to release to the Congress of the public, the entire Muller report with only those reductions that are required by law and I think if you're going to criticize the Attorney General for expressing his opinion about it, you ought give some acknowledgement to the fact that you know he made that decision to release that report to the public. So people are free. To to make their own decisions and as I said, the the the department, already his decision if Congress was going to take any action on that you know they're not bound by anything that turn your own Barr says. So I think some of that criticism is unfair how the though that he gave his opinion of the report two weeks before people had a chance to read it for themselves. I don't know that. I. Would agree with that. He initially wrote the letter three or four page letter where he summarized what he referred to as the principal conclusions of the report and people are pointed out that it's it's incomplete but obviously, it's a four page summary of the principal conclusions of a report that several hundred pages, but he had committed to release the entire report to the public. So ultimately, Joey did that and people are free to draw their own conclusions. So I think that If folks in the Congress, for example, read that report and believe that additional action is required with their free to take attorney general does not control what they do. Now in the letter, he's he cites the fact that you agreed with him that there wasn't sufficient evidence establish that the president committed. Obstruction of Justice Katie is the lawyer here on our words matter team I'm not. So you can, you can set me straight but I watched the Lester Holt interview and the President says straight out of his mouth that he fired Komi because of the Russia investigation is several conversations with Don mcgann trying to get other people fired the So I guess I'm trying to understand. How both you and Ag Bar came to that conclusion and I'm also informed by some two thousand prosecutors who thought the president. Obstructed justice. You know Joe I don't know how much those prosecutors knew about the facts or whether they had ever personally prosecuted obstruction cases. I can only draw my own experience having been in the Department for thirty years much of that doing public corruption work handling obstruction and other similar cases, and my conclusion was that the evidence set forth report would not warrant prosecution and Obviously, you're released a report that freed people express their own opinion. But it remains my opinion that the evidence would not support it that if you tried to go to trial on that evidence, you would not get a conviction. You might not even get to a jury because the judge might find the evidence insufficient to prove the elements, the crime, and the reason for that Joe is that the the fact that the president may have wanted the investigation to end is not sufficient to constitute obstruction of justice. You need to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the president was acting with corrupt intent and that's the key element you need to prove, and you need to prove it to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury. You'd need to face you need introduced witnesses who are going to be cross examined fence would be able to introduce their own witnesses. So you have to read a a a letter or even read a report and just toss off. The opinion that Gee I, think that's obstruction. That's just not the way it works to make a decision like that would take a take a commitment by federal prosecutors who believed they were prepared to prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt and and I don't think that's true. So we have a couple I just have a couple of questions that I'm sure our listeners would love to hear your take on and they're broad issues not. Necessarily on this one why is it that it's department justice policy or guidelines that president should not be indicted That issue has been addressed to separate times in the Nixon administration. So Republican, lawyers in the department reach that conclusion and again in the Clinton administration. So Democratic Lawyers reach that conclusion and the reason is based on the impracticality. Since a number one, the impracticality is the President Court on criminal charges and number two the structural challenge. The president is in fact, the head of the executive branch, and so in a sense, all criminal cases are brought under the president's authority as a legal matter it would be in view of the folks who wrote those memos unconstitutional. Now, my view is that if a case were to arise in which the evidence justified prosecution in the president somebody came to me when I was deputy attorney general and said, we believe this evidence merits prosecution of the president. Then we'd have to take a close look at. The policy and determine whether or not we felt bound by because it's not law. It's just the interpretation of these lawyers it could always be changed but but my view is that is fundamentally correct that if if you determine the president committed a crime that merited prosecution to prosecute him while he's in office would not be practical, and so then you need to consider whether there are other remedies such as referring it to Congress to make a determination whether or not Congress determined that impeachment was appropriate, which is basically what can start started in Whitewater I was not involved in the aspect investigation, but you'd have to reach that decision at that point, but my view is that The policy does not prohibit us from conducting investigations. We still have an obligation to conduct an investigation, but it might at the end of the day, preclude us from filing prosecution while the president was in office. Last question on this, I was involved in Whitewater which turned into the the impeachment investigation in that estimation, the independent counsel and I understand it's different than the special counsel subpoenaed the President and ended up compelling the President to testify under oath. What's your view on whether president trump should have been compelled to testify under oath. Joe The special counsel I think testified about this last year in his hearing and he determined not to pursue that, and so ultimately, I did not have to face that issue. If he had presented as a recommendation that he believed the evidence warranted a subpoena to the President I would review that evidence consulted with my advisers and that would have been a very challenging decision for us to make. But the issue did not arise because a special counsel did not believe It was the right move and part of that rationale of course is that it would have taken a very long time. President presumably would have objected it would have been litigated longtime would have gone by and so what the counsel had away was the significance of the allegations the time it was going to take and the and the probability of developing evidence a result of that process and and he determined not to do it. So that's a very good example Joe of the kind of decision that. I think needs to be left in the first instance to an independent prosecutor and That's the point that was really the point of appointing Director Muller is so that that decision would be made independently of politics whether you agree or disagree with what director did. I. Think everybody recognizes that he's somebody who has an extraordinary record of ignoring politics and and doing what? He believed to be the right thing. So last question here that ends things about a month after the report came out a little bit over a month after that on April twenty ninth, two, thousand and nineteen. That's when you submitted your resignation letter to President Trump and I want to quote from that briefly you said I'm grateful to you for the opportunity to serve for. The, courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations and for the goals you set in your inaugural address, patriotism, unity safety, education, and prosperity because a nation exists to serve its citizens. Now, I, know we don't talk about personal conversations with the president's we serves but courtesy and humor and unity aren't things we usually associate with Donald Trump. So why those particular words? But can you actually did a I was grateful for the fact that despite what the president is saying publicly and sometimes saying in his tweets that he was courteous and his personal interactions with me and and he also often displayed a sense of humor. People don't often see that you certainly don't see that at some angry press conferences that he holds but that's what I saw and I thought. It was important for me in that letter to articulate two things. Number One how I felt about Burma Justice. I am a believer in the principles, the Department of Justice, and most importantly I know from experience that we should have great confidence in the personnel department justice. That's not to say, they don't make mistakes but we do have internal affairs officers. We have corrective mechanisms in the department we have one, hundred, ten thousand. Employees and people are GonNa, make mistakes but but we have mechanisms to correct them and so based upon that I have tremendous confidence in the integrity the Department of Justice I have tremendous gratitude for the folks who serve in the department and number two Katie. I actually was grateful to the president for putting in that job and for allowing me to do the job. Yeah. Despite obviously the tweets and the attacks which. I could have done without the bottom line is that he did allow me to finish that investigation despite the fact that a lot of people whispering in his ear that he should terminate me or and the investigation, and so that's what's reflected in that letter I spent thirty years in the department. I'm proud of what compass there I'm proud of the work that I and my colleagues did in the department and it's Unfortunate that the public. It's a different impression because all you hear about the Department of Justice are allegations about alleged wrongdoing and often you hear it from people who have a partisan view of what the department does. But if you look at the day to day work of those one, hundred and ten thousand people in the Department of Justice I think Americans would be very proud of of what they're doing in their behalf. Rod. You've been really generous with your time. I WANNA ask you a couple of quick questions before we let you go. there. Some of the things that Muller worked on in the prosecutions and convictions he got you know are still in the news. So I want to ask you about a couple of those Michael Flynn who he got a guilty plea out of the Department of Justice now went to court to try to have that overturned. Did that undermined the work of Muller and the work that's Department of Justice had done at the time. No didn't in my view Joe I don't talk about pending cases, and so I can't talk directly about that case. But what I can't tell you is that you know I've worked on cases and supervise many cases in my career, and typically when a defendant is represented by a good lawyers which General Flynn was and comes in and pleads guilty and acknowledges that they willfully made a false statement you typically can be confident that they did. So it was quite a surprise to me. When those facts developed in the departments pleading that was filed earlier this year you had been gone for about a year at that point. So I don't have any personal knowledge of the information that came to light in that leading but I think we'll have to wait and see I haven't heard any allegation that any particular prosecutor engaged in wrongdoing. Obviously, people can disagree about what is not exculpatory evidence and I think ultimately, we have to wait and let the court sorted out. There were a fair number of prosecutors who didn't WanNa, put their name on that pleading and some whoever Zaid that one case that is is over is Roger Stone case this is a case that attorney general bar admitted last week that he personally intervened in. He said Reg Jones a friend of the president does that sort of personal intervention? Create. You know a structural problem, an perception problem for DOJ. So. First of all Joe, it's not really over as I. Tell People in Washington it's never over the stone case he's not going to prison, but the case actually remains in court on that issue I. Think we have to distinguish between obviously the perception and reality. The perception is there. It's unavoidable. I think everybody recognizes that but on the other hand as attorney general said. It's actually the judges responsibility to determine the appropriate sentence and the judge did agree with Bill Bar. So the prosecutors are certainly right that in the ordinary case, they would recommend a sense fell into the sentencing guidelines and let the judge make the determination. So it's unusual to have a supervisor step in and lower the recommendation but at the end of the day, the judge made that decision and I think that people criticized bill bar for that fail. Also to give him credit for the fact that he has defended the conviction and he has stated that he believes that the sense that was imposed by the judge was correct and according to media reports, which I believe are probably credible. He was not in favor the commutation so So yes, it's unfortunate. Yes. I know does create that that perception, and obviously I would have preferred that it not be handled the way that it was handled. My last questions, a personal one having been in and around Washington for a long time there was a period of time. I don't remember the exact week where every time you turned on the news you saw a headline saying Rod. Rosenstein. Being fire today Rod. Rosenstein going to the White House to be fired you were not. But how did that feel during that week when you know everyone the world was speculating on what your future was. You know it's interesting. Joe. Living through that kind of experience and and it is novel in the sense that you know this this twenty, four, seven media cycle in the real time coverage on the Internet didn't exist when you're in the White House twenty years ago. But you do develop a sense of humor about it. After a while I have two teenage daughters and They would see these reports on the news and I would tell them look if I actually get fire to let you know. Otherwise try to avoid try to ignore the media, and of course, what you appreciate which a lot of people don't appreciate. That getting fired from political job is not the end of the world move on it's intended to be a short term job you move on other things and so There are a lot of things worse than being fired or being rumored to be fired but. you know in this administration, I think people have gotten used to that. The President obviously has shown a willingness to fires on people and often speculates about it or at least stories flowed out that he's speculating about firing one person or another, and so you develop kind of gallow sense of humor about it and I hope that if you talked you know my staff the folks. I worked with day in and day out They would tell you that we largely just tried to ignore that I didn't watch TV AT INFO twitter. My days were filled with meetings and the season's memos coming across my desk, and so we did our best to try to try to tune that out as a matter of fact I I- banned the deputy attorney general's office from having. A television set on as you know, that's the thing to do in. Washington. Every office you walk into now has four panel TV. So they're following the breaking news because the message that I gave to my team was that we need to be worried about what's going to happen to the country in the next thirty years not just the next thirty minutes I hope we succeeded in doing that. Well thank you for taking the time to talk to us today. We we appreciate. You're welcome to be with. Thank you. That's it. For this week's episode of words matter. Your hosts are Joe Lockhart, and Katie Barlow. The executive producer is Adam Levine. Words matters produced in association with Cafe Studios. The executive. Producer. Cafes Tamara separate. audio production by the hangers. I hope you enjoyed this episode of words matter. As I mentioned at the outset, cafe studios has partnered with words, matter media to bring you this week we podcast it will soon become exclusive to members of the cafe insider community. Listening to get access to all insider content, consider joining at cafe dot com slash words that's cafe dot com slash words. Thank you for listening towards matter please rate and review words matter Apple podcasts or wherever you get your shows.

president US attorney Deputy Attorney General Attorney General FBI Justice Department director Department of Justice White House special counsel Katie Director James Comey President Obama Attorney Katie Barlow Joe Russia us attorney US Director Muller Joe Lockhart
Jenna Ellis Discusses President Trump's Decision to Declassify Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr's Documents

Bill O'Reilly's Free Podcast

08:16 min | 3 years ago

Jenna Ellis Discusses President Trump's Decision to Declassify Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr's Documents

"Joining me now to discuss all of this is Jennifer Ellis. Jenna is the director of public policy for the James Dobson family institute. She is also a constitutional law attorney and a former prosecutor general great to see you. Thank you for having me Monica, you bet. So as you heard the president just ordered the declassification and the unredacted of these documents, this is going to be a sweeping disclosure. What do you expect we might see? Well, I think it's very wide him to do that from a constitutional standpoint, of course, he has the authority to unilaterally declassify and I think what we're going to see from these documents is how deep the collusion among the Democrats really were to stop his presidency to stop his campaign in two thousand sixteen, and we're going to see that he was right all along that this was a more of a deep state effort to stall his campaign and we'll we're not going to find that there is any. Evidence of Russian collusion. And I think this is going to have a severe impact on the Mueller investigation as it should. And Monica, really all of these stories together, whether it's Kevin on the Faisal court, the Russia collusion story. Miller, all of these things altogether should emphasize to the American people that we need to be truth seekers, and that's really what is not happening among the Democratic Party today is that they're not seeking truth. They're seeking political outcomes and political tactics in order to get there. And so for the FIFA documents, in particular, we are going to see the truth. Well, and you know, you mentioned the the Democrats the left, they're certainly not interested in the truth, but unfortunately, neither is the mainstream media in this country either who are serving the wingmen for those forces. Let's talk a little bit Jenna about specifically what we might see, because I'm hearing from a number of very good sources that these documents contain exculpatory information about Carter page was. Original target of the FIFA warrant a George popadopoulos, and in fact, the president of the United States and that exculpatory information was actually withheld from the Feis accord. And that's entirely possible. I mean, remember that that often in a very similar way in law enforcement and criminal investigations where you have a law enforcement going to get an affidavit in support of warrantless arrest, for example, and they give the information to the judge that will determine whether or not a an arrest, warrant search, warrant those types of things are in place. And unfortunately, there are instances where law enforcement will either outright lie or they will just they'll encourage and kind of eggs agitate some of the evidence. And when you actually get to it, and a defense attorney has the opportunity to go back through that affidavit and point out those inconsistencies than it does become exculpatory. And it does show that there are some times biases in order to obtain that weren't. That is not how our Justice system on our law enforcement is supposed to work. That is not how the Fisek. Court was designed to be set up. This was supposed to make sure that the intelligence and the spy, the communities and surveillance for the United States. We're main to have integrity and to make sure that we have security in our national surveillance operations. This is not designed to be a political target of a campaign that one side doesn't want to move forward. That's not as furthering truth. That's not what the Pfizer court was designed to notice. Right that. That's why the FIS accord is supposed to be secret because supposed to do what you were just outlining. And it may be that these documents showed that the only collusion was on the part of the DOJ an FBI and perhaps others to defraud that court. Let me ask you specifically agenda about a couple of big names who had served in the Obama administration, and some of whom are still there in high levels of the DOJ with respect to the fisa warrants, Sally Yates, then deputy attorney general later acting attorney general for short period of time in the Trump administration. She signed one of the Feis awards. Rod Rosenstein who became deputy attorney general. He signed the last fuss award. He's still in there and there's already a grand jury in place investigating Andrew McCabe, these three people. I mean, if they're implicated in these documents, what does that mean? Well, it depends on what we actually find, but I think there is a very strong likelihood that particularly with Yates and McCabe that they may be implicated in and potentially indicted or have other charges that come about potentially for perjury. I mean, you have to sign those types of affidavits. Under penalty of perjury, you have to say that the u are knowingly putting forth the truth and your knowledge as to at that point on you. This is not supposed to be a political target to advance a special interest, and that's what the fisa court has become. And so particularly, I think with those two individuals specifically, they're probably very concerned that the president is now declassifying these and releasing these, and it just shows that President Trump has been full of integrity all along by saying there was he had nothing to do with collusion. This has been a witch hunt his words from the beginning and that the American people should be able to have. To have confidence in our law enforcement that they are not politically biased and motivated like what we saw from struck in page, but rather that they are doing in bringing about the interests of Justice. That's clearly not what happened here. Let me ask you specifically about James Comey the former FBI director and riddle Loretta Lynch the former attorney general. Is it at all possible Jenna that all of these machinations were going on Faisal, warrants, it cetera, and the head of the department and the attorney general did not know about it that's highly highly unlikely. And I think that we're going to continue to see evidence that shows the opposite of that Anna particular Lou what's already on the record. I think it's safe to say that that is very, very unlikely, especially because these are two of the top law enforcement agents who have control over their particular agencies. And I just don't think that that's possible. I mean, even in a very small state unit, like a district. Attorney's office, the lead prosecutors. There they understand what's going on even at a very, very low level. That's just really highly unlikely. And also I think there's an outstanding question as to what the then president of the United States Barack Obama may have known. But that's a question for a different day. Final question for you general, before I let you go, you mentioned the Muller investigation. Once all of this information is released and assuming it shows what we suspect it will show which is deep corruption at the highest levels here. What do you think it does to the Muller prob-. Well, I've been saying for months now that Mueller should close the investigation and should say, there is no evidence whatsoever of any collusion, but we don't even know really the scope of his investigation. Eighth, his scope allows him to proceed against potentially some of these other deep state people. Those types of indictments should be ended down. A prosecutor should always have a higher calling to be in the interest of Justice and. The truth, wherever that evidence leads, it should not be biased again against one political party or another. And we see that double standard even within the context of that investigation. And it's simply undermining the American family and the American people's trust in our law enforcement. And that's really regrettable, we'll we'll see what happens with Muller investigation. Once these documents are finally released, Jenna LS, the director of public policy public policy for the James Dobson of family institute and former federal prosecutor Jenner. Thank you for your time today. Thank you. Pleasure.

Jenna LS president United States director Democrats attorney Muller Attorney FIFA Monica prosecutor Mueller fisa deputy attorney general FBI Sally Yates James Dobson family institute
OxiContin Maker To Pay Out Billions In Civil, Criminal Penalties

NPR's Business Story of the Day

05:29 min | 8 months ago

OxiContin Maker To Pay Out Billions In Civil, Criminal Penalties

"This message comes from NPR sponsor Adian the future-proof Payments Platform. Welcome all payments beyond the cutting edge of customer experiences and grow your business with Adian Visit A. D. Y. E. N. dot com slash NPR to learn more. The makers of oxycontin one of the drugs blame for sending off the OPIOID crisis will plead guilty to federal criminal charges. The Justice Department announced those charges against Purdue Pharma yesterday as part of an eight billion dollar settlement NPR addiction correspondent Brian Man is with US Brian Good Morning. Steve, how's a settlement? GonNa work. Yeah. So if it's approved by a federal bankruptcy judge, Steve The purdue Pharma will admit to the three felony charges including a charge that they misled doctors about the safety of medications like Oxycontin, over time, then the company would pay out billions of dollars in civil and criminal penalties, Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general who outlined the agreement yesterday says the sackler family would also be forced to give up control of their company. Instead of being the owners of a major pharmaceutical company, they will have no stake in that company. Now that sounds like a lot but critics are pointing to the fact that Purdue Pharma was already in big trouble facing bankruptcy struggling to hold onto employees and flooded with thousands of lawsuits tied to the improper marketing of opioids, and despite all that under this deal does federal deal the sackler walk away with most of their personal fortunes intact by some estimates there worth as much as ten billion dollars because of OPIOID prophets, they'll pay a fraction of that in penalties only about two hundred, twenty, five, million dollars out of their own pockets and Steve. There are no criminal charges against them the sackler. Admit to know personal wrongdoing. Well, how do prosecutors explain the deal would include no criminal charges and the sackler not entirely but mostly giving up a pile of liabilities rather than a penalty they would really feel. Deputy. Attorney General. Rosen was asked about this yesterday and he says these penalties go as far as the government can right now holding purdue and the sackler accountable. There is no law that says if you've done something wrong, we should just simply strip somebody of all their assets in existence that's not how it works. It has to be that we are looking at specific ex wrongdoing civilly or criminally, and then having a proportionate response but a lot of people including more than two dozen state attorneys, general dozens of members of Congress advocates for people suffering from addiction. They all say, this isn't proportionate response. They say members of the sackler family played a personal role pushing the prescription opioid boom developing these illegal and deceptive marketing practices that made purdue. Pharma. So profitable the Tissue James is New York State Attorney General, and she's suing members of the. Sackler family, her team tracked hundreds of millions of dollars in opioid prophets that the sackler sent to offshore accounts. She told. NPR. This justice department deal doesn't go nearly far enough doesn't account the hundreds of thousands of deaths of millions of addictions caused by produce farmer in the sackler family all of destruction that they have caused it basically allows billionaires to keep their billions without any accounting for how much a really made James says her state probe of the sackler family will continue. Meanwhile, there's one more detailed, the settlement that sparking. Anger, it turns out purdue. Pharma doesn't actually have enough money left to pay out the billions of dollars agreed to in this settlement. So the plan is for the government to reorganize Purdue Pharma into what's known as a public benefit company that means prophets from future sales of opioids like oxycontin would be used to pay for drug treatment and rehabilitation programs around the country Greg mcneal lives in. Ohio. One of the states hit hardest by the OPIOID epidemic and he lost his son Sam to an overdose five years ago. He. Says this idea of the government getting into the OPIOID business now after it's caused so much harm. He says it just feels wrong it. It just seems ill advised having the government entered into that business. Gosh. There's something about that. That just doesn't doesn't add up at all. And I should say Steve Twenty five state attorneys general agree they signed a letter last week they send it to Attorney General William Bar arguing that this arrangement is ethically wrong and could shelter purdue Pharma and the sackler from future criminal or civil liability Brian Kennedy at least be said for the deal that there's some money here that might help people harmed by the. OPIOID. Epidemic. That will definitely that's what the Justice Department is saying. So let's take stock for a second nearly seventy two thousand people died from overdoses last year this is still ongoing. A lot of those were opioid deaths. What US attorneys say is if this deal is finalized by the bankruptcy court, it would mean extraordinary new resources for states and cities and tribal governments struggling to keep people alive. But one thing everyone agrees to here is that this problem is so big now affecting. So many Americans they say the eight billion dollars from purdue, Pharma is really just a drop in the bucket. Brian Man is NPR's addiction correspondent Brian. Thanks. Thank you Steve.

Purdue Pharma purdue NPR Sackler Steve Brian Man Justice Department Jeffrey Rosen Attorney Adian NPR deputy attorney general US Steve Twenty Ohio Brian Epidemic Congress
An Interview with Rod Rosenstein

Words Matter

1:07:34 hr | 11 months ago

An Interview with Rod Rosenstein

"Love this podcast. Support this show through the cast supporter feature. It's up to you how much you give and there's no regular commitment. Just click the link in the show description to support now. Welcome, to words matter with Katie, Barlow and Joe Lockhart. Welcomed two words matter Katie Barlow. Our goal is to promote objective reality as a wise man once said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion not their own facts words have power and words have consequences. We are so excited to announce that words matter media is partnering with Cafe Studios to bring you a new season of the words matter podcast cafe strives to inform listeners about the most critical issues of the day. Each week Katie and I will do our best to bring facts and context to the often fraught political conversations that dominate our national discourse. We'll be speaking with an array of guests including people who've made a great impact on American politics or who make it their business to understand what's really happening in Washington. For, now you can continue to listen to episodes of words matter for free in the coming weeks the show will be available exclusively to members of cafe insider, and we hope you'll consider joining the insider community whose members enjoy a collection of podcast created for engaged citizens around the world you can head to cafe dot com slash words to get two free weeks of membership that's cafe dot com slash words. You'll get access to all future episodes of words, matter and other exclusive content including the insider podcast co hosted by Pre Perera former US attorney for the southern district of New York and then mill grump former New Jersey attorney general along with much more exclusive content. That's cafe dot com slash words. And now for this week's episode. Our guest today served as the thirty seventh deputy attorney general of the United States from April two, thousand seventeen until may two thousand nineteen prior to his appointment he served as United States attorney for the district of Maryland and at the time of his confirmation as Deputy Attorney General on April Twenty, fifth two, thousand, seventeen, he was the nation's longest serving US attorney. The Senate, approved his nomination by a vote of ninety four to six prior to his service. As deputy attorney general, he spent more than twenty five years as a prosecutor for the US Department of Justice Rod Rosenstein Welcome to words matter. Thank you Katie and Joan glad to be with you. And in the interest of full disclosure, our listeners should know that I've known rod personally and My partner is worked with Rod for Rod for the past several years. So just want to get that out of the way. It strikes me that you're one of the few people over the last couple years who hasn't done it media tour written a book. So I think our listeners would like to know something about how you got to where you are today. So can you talk a little bit about what brought you into doj as a prosecutor and then eventually as deputy attorney general sure. I'll be happy to Joe and you know it's interesting. You make the point about the book and the Media Tour because I can tell you the offers that people received to. Write books are quite lucrative but I decided that wasn't the path that I wanted to take, and that's partly a function of my history in the department had any law enforcement I joined the Department of Justice in nine hundred, ninety following clerkship for federal judge I started out as a trial attorney in the public corruption section and the Justice Department and as a result of that job and other jobs that I. Subsequently took including serving in his associate independent counsel on Whitewater investigation, and then as a United States attorney one of the most important things I learned was about the confidentiality of what we do in law enforcement. That is that when you have an allegation of criminal activity and you determine that it warrants investigation, you have a responsibility to investigate it, but you also have a commensurate responsibility not to talk about it. And so in the Department of Justice what we learn and I learned this in both Republican and Democrat administrations is that when we had allegations to make, we make them in court. We prove our case with evidence witnesses before jury and we try to keep our personal opinions out of it. So that's one of the reasons that I've for the most part refrain from making any public comments since I left the department. I agree with you. There I. Think I wanted the few White House press. Secretary who's not written a book because I think it makes it harder for future press secretary's for the president to trust them and confide in them. So I I admire that. Speaking of my White House, the Clinton White House I. Know You were working as an associate independent counsel Ken Starr? You were gone before the Lewinsky section but you were there for much of the Whitewater. Tell me what you learned during that process and how did that inform how you approached the duties you had as the deputy attorney general when the president was being investigated. Whether number lessons that I learned Joe that bore on the way I conducted myself in office and one of them, which is something that I know you appreciate well, is the disconnect between what's being spun in the media about any particular investigation. What's actually happening behind the scenes in the investigation, and often they're really just two different worlds because not necessarily that. Reporters are purposefully trying to misrepresent things, but they're dependent upon their sources and people who talked to reporters sometimes their second or third hand sometimes the firsthand but they always have an agenda and they tend to spin the information in a way that favors their personal agenda and so the stories that you read in the media about investigations about what's being done, who's being? Targeted who's likely to be indicted often bear little relation to what's actually going on behind the scenes and so that's one of the lessons I learned. Another one is that it's critically important for prosecutors to remain silent during their investigations and I think Bob Muller is a superb exemplar of that he and his staff were often allegations of leaking in the media I. Don't think there was any credible evidence that any leak came out of Bob Muller, his team and I. Think it's very important to do that. It tremendously frustrates the media because reporters obviously are dependent upon leakers to write their stories. But in the end though sometimes we have to take our slings and Arrows I. think it's the right way to do the job. He they were many days when I wished that the. Independent counsel the special counsel took. The same approach is more because we had so many leaks and it had so much of an impact on the investigation that it was very hard function during that time and I appreciate what you're saying there it also has the effect jove raising expectations which I think is unfortunate but turn it Yvonne of providing a running commentary about where the investigation stands where it's likely to go I think it's just intolerable because that would inject the prosecutor into that ongoing public debate. and. So what what are you actually had a similar experience to what we faced in the Russia investigation, which is that there were congressional investigations, ongoing and Congress. Of course, in congressional staffers are not subject to the same confidentiality rules as prosecutors and agents, and so There's a constant flow of information coming from them as well. In the upshot is that every day you have a new story and it's critical for the folks who conducting the investigation not to be distracted by those stories and to keep their focus on what it is, they're supposed to be investigating. So I want to delve a little bit more into the details of of your history in nineteen ninety seven when you joined the US. Attorney's Office in Baltimore Maryland I is in a USA and assistant US attorney than two thousand, five President George W Bush nominated you and you were confirmed by the Senate as the US attorney for the district of Maryland. But then two, thousand, nine something unusual happened or at least unusual by modern standards you were the only US attorney. President. retained. When he took office I know he initially retained several but you stayed for the long haul explain what usually happens with the US attorney's after change in presidential administration and why you were kept on well, it varies there are some presidents who replace or fire all the US attorneys. Immediately, it typically takes some time to get replacement selected and confirmed by the Senate Bill Clinton when he came in office in Nineteen ninety-three fired almost all. The attorneys immediately or within a month or two of a taking office. The Bush and Obama administrations retained some US attorneys for at least a limited period of time, and then of course, president trump went back to the Clinton model of firing on all the US immediately so that the practice actually does vary nobody was more surprised than I about my remaining is IOS turning the Obama administration part of that part of the reason for that is. That I had been nominated to serve as a judge on the four circuit in two thousand, seven nomination was blocked by the Democratic senators have the state of Maryland Barber Makovsky and Ben Cardin. So I I did not anticipate that I would remain as us, attorney Obama Administration but I was honored and privileged to do the job because the principal the Department of Justice which I learned throughout my career in both the career and non-career. Positions a persist through administrations. Obviously, there are policy changes but the principles of the Department and the rules that we follow are consistent from administration to administration. So it was a surprise to me that they did not replace me in two, thousand nine. It was a surprise to me that they didn't replace me in two, thousand, thirteen but It was a wonderful experience for made to serve through essentially at least parts of three administrations. And during your time you you mentioned working in the public corruption unit. But also as you as attorney, you prosecuted several high profile cases of public corruption, particularly police corruption when you were. US Attorney and had sweeping indictments of corrupt law enforcement officers at various levels but you also worked closely with local law enforcement to dramatically reduce violent crime in the area including particularly homicide. So with with all of that background and and your long history with law enforcement kind of on both sides of the coin I wanna ask you your thoughts on whether there is a problem of systemic racism in police departments across the country or at least the ones that you investigated. There are a lot of issues in Baltimore Police Department systemic racism did not appear to be one of them and I think Katie you know obviously my my experience demonstrates that you can prosecute corrupt police officers you can help to correct problems in policing but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to condemn police officers my experience having spent thirty years department justice and worked with Federal State and local law enforcement officers all over the country is that ninety nine percent of police officers are honest there people have great integrity. They're the kind of folk she'd want to have your neighbors and friends like any line of work. There are outliers There are folks who abuse. Their powers, people who abuse citizens, and we need to hold those folks accountable and that's one of the things we did in Baltimore Baltimore Baltimore's a apartment that had some significant management problems and as a result of that, there were cultural issues within the department that resulted in a number of large-scale conspiracies which you inverted to, and so we rooted those out but I was always careful when we brought those cases not to condemn the entire police department because there are a lot of good cops out there who who are demoralized when they see that kind of publicity and who are just as offended as you and I are when they see misconduct by their colleagues. So right. What's now get into the trump administration trump was elected in two thousand sixteen. Jeff. Sessions asked you to join the administration what was your connection with senator sessions then sessions and what connection did you have with Donald Trump? Well I had no personal connection with either one of them. In fact I spoke to jeff sessions for the first time when he called and invited me to come down and talk to him in his Senate office in late November of two thousand sixteen and initially I didn't even realize I was being interviewed for a job. He told me that he was interested in my thoughts about. the policies, the department, and about how we can best achieve his priorities which included reducing drug abuse and fighting violent crime and so I, talked with him fairmount about those issues and that was my first interaction with the attorney. General. Obviously, we had a lot of friends in common but I had no prior connection with them and by virtue of my experience in the department. Is Not involved in politics and I've been a registered Republican my whole life but I not been active in politics. So I had not come across the attorney general or the president in any of those capacities. In fact, the first time I met the president was shortly before he was inaugurated, he came to Baltimore to a football game and I shook his hand before the game that was the first time I've ever met him. A given how political Washington is did you have any hesitation about jumping into main DOJ mission that was much as you try to keep politics out of it? You could never completely do that. I had no hesitation about it joe and it's interesting issue I know there are people who speculate about the risks of getting involved in political office new folks say they wouldn't want to work in government in this administration or that. Administration but. My view is there's a lot of good work to be done in a administration and obviously you whether it's your parties president or the other parties president they're going to be policies with which you disagree nobody's a hundred percent in agreement with anybody's particular agenda. But within the department, we were pursuing what Jeff sessions described as a a mandate to enforce the rule of law to reduce violent crime and drug abuse to try to handsome immigration enforcement to support law enforcement. All things that I believe were were righteous goals and I was honored to be part of it. So before you are sworn in as deputy attorney general is Dag your soon to be boss ag sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. I think that was on march second two, thousand seventeen and your recent Senate testimony. You praised that recusals that it was the right thing to do. So if you could explain to our listeners why the AG recused himself, why that was the right thing and what the Justice Department guidelines are on recusals and what you thought that would mean for you coming into DOJ. Katie I was not involved in that decision I had been nominated but had not been confirmed. So I was up in Baltimore doing my job and I learned about the recusals everybody else did on television. But my understanding is the attorney general consulted with the ethics experts in the department and as a result of his involvement in the political campaign determined that it was appropriate for him to recuse. Strictly based upon the rules and Jeff sessions is a roof our that's one of the reasons I thought. He would do a superb job as attorney general because he obviously has strong political views you wanted to make significant policy changes, but he respects the rule of law and when he evaluated those rules and and realize that they called for his refusal, he felt it was appropriate to recuse and so I wasn't involved in effect at the time I was preparing for my confirmation hearing and I. Had A hearing along with Rachel brand who was the associate attorney general number three official in the department, and as we were preparing for the hearing, we actually anticipated that Rachel would get along the tough questions during the confirmation hearing but after the Russia recusals, everybody turned their attention to me. So that had a big impact on the the nature of the confirmation process. So aside, then from how he actually decided to do it, what are the rules that kind of require it to the people understand what goes into that thought process in that decision gets made. They're actually not very easy to explain which is why the department has experts to help you work your way through them on that whitaker faced similar issues when he became acting attorney general and it took a couple of weeks to work through and determine whether or not There was a basis for him to recuse but the the presumption when you're in these high level positions in the department, is that you you not recuse you have responsibility to do the job unless the rules call for you not to do the job, and so you go through all the rules there. There are a variety of different rules. There are bar rules there are federal regulations, and then there are department regulations and policies. And so with regard to the Attorney General, my understanding is that the rule that applied there was that he had been involved in the political campaign and therefore could not involved in an investigation of the campaign. So that is my understanding about the rule that resulted in his refusal. So you are still working out being confirmed in your dropped into the middle of this. Let's talk a little bit about some of the things that actually happened. It's been reported that on May Eight, th two, thousand, seventeen you in the attorney general were at the White House super lunch with white. House counsel Don began. It was then that again reported that you learned that the president was planning to fire FBI Director James Comey I is that accurate. I don't have a calendar in front of me, Joe but I believe it was a Monday and I think the eighth is probably right. What was your reaction to learning that? my reaction learning. That was that the president has the authority to decide who he's going to keep or removed from these high level positions, and that's a matter entirely the discretion, the president. And apparently you met later that day with the president did you discuss in any detail why the president wanted to fire comey? The president has articulated a number of reasons why he was concerned about Mr Komi y wanted to replace them as FBI Director I. As you know I wrote a memo subsequently we I I explained what I felt that Jim Komi had done wrong with regard to Hillary Clinton investigation. The president's reasons weren't necessarily the same as mine but he obviously had his own reasons and his reasons run reviewable. Now, the president has discretion to appoint attorneys general and Secretaries Anybody that he likes subject to Senate confirmation and he has the ability to remove them for whatever reason he deems appropriate. So that memo became quite significant in all of the discussion around the firing. Of Cobian whether the president obstructed justice. Can you talk a little bit about why he wrote it? I think it's already been explained publicly that I wrote it because the president asked me to write it and what's reflected in their. I would written that memo for any president who asked me to do it out in the same from her Hillary Clinton. It's not a partisan mental. It's simply an explanation of how Jim commes conduct during that Hillary Clinton investigation was inconsistent with the principles that department and it's ironic that people. Now. View that obviously for through a political lands but I can tell you in the fall of two, thousand, sixteen, my colleagues, the Obama US attorneys, I was a holdover but my colleagues had been appointed by President Obama they recognize those same issues that I recognized a number of significant former officials the Department of Justice including former attorneys, General Deputy Attorney General Express their views, some of them in op eds and it was quite clear that the director. commes decisions were inconsistent with department policy I articulated in that memo, which I think was two or three pages about a year year and a half. Later, the inspector general produced a report that was several hundred pages and was consistent with what I had articulated because it was actually quite clear that the decisions that director Comey made and I think he acknowledged himself that they were inconsistent with department policy, but he felt that he was justified in dispensing with those rules. Given what you wrote do you think Komi should have been fired based on the memo? Not the politics and not everything came afterwards but given the mistakes he made do you think it was right that he was fired? Joe I think. Having, spent a career in the Department of Justice One of the things that I learned is that there are. In, the majority positions in the Department of career positions in a career position, you have due process rights. You have a lot of procedural protections and the right reasons after we are ticketed for any kind of disciplinary action including firing for political appointees there's no standard for hiring and there's no standard for removal. So ultimately, it's a decision of the president now many people expected that. Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would replace jim call me after the election the president announced in late January that he decided to keep Jim Komi and that was fine with me. That's the president's decision. The president decided to remove him. That was fine with me too. But the bottom line is that the director had violated those rules and that's A. Problem I think creates a problem that needs to be dealt with because we need to make sure it's not going to happen again and I'm quite confident that Chris Wray as director of the FBI is going to return to the traditional rules governing the FBI, and so you will not see him holding similar press conferences writing letters on the eve of the election. There's a lot of commentary at the time back and forth about Jim Komi and how he handled things. But for those who haven't read the letter, can you explain how James Comey broke with with the FBI and the Justice Department's chain of command and nonpartisan traditions in that investigation? Where you've actually identified Katie two separate issues the first is the chain of command that is the procedure for making important decisions in the department and the second or the traditions are underlying substantive policies I with regard to the chain of command. It's very important that people understand that the FBI reports to the Department of Justice. It's sort of like the military in the sense that had exercises a lot of authority but. It's subject to supervision by federal prosecutors in body Attorney General. So the first principle is that the FBI director needs to respect the chain of command. The FBI director reports the deputy attorney general through the deputy to the Attorney General in the Obama administration that was Sally Yates and Loretta Lynch and director. Comey has explained that he made the decision not to tell the attorney general deputy attorney general what he was going to say When he helped that press conference announcing his opinion about the Hillary Clinton investigation. That's a procedural violation. That's a lack of respect for the chain of command subsequently when the director decided to send a letter to Congress on the eve of the election announcing that he was reopening Hillary. Clinton. Investigation he did not follow instructions from the Department of Justice I believe he talked to a lower level official in the deputy attorney. General's office and went forward anyway in those instances if the FBI is going to take such dramatic step inconsistent with department precedent with a potential impact on the election, the FBI director has a responsibility fully brief the leadership of the department and make sure he or she has their approval because that's his responsibility. He is a leader, the FBI, but he's still a subordinate official in the Department of Justice. So that's the procedural violation. Substantively with regard of the press conference number one, the FBI director should not be expressing his personal opinion about an investigation because the FBI's role in the federal system is to make recommendations to the Department of Justice, and then prosecutors make the decision whether or not to bring a case. So when director Komi went to the microphone announced that no reasonable prosecutor with charge the case he was directly undermining the authority of. The Department of Justice which had not yet made its decision and had a right to make that decision independently in addition to that, he proceeded to layout the evidence and to criticize Secretary Clinton and that's also a violation of a very important principle. As I mentioned earlier, the Department conducts investigations and either we charge or we do not charge there's no middle ground where we close the case but chastise the target of the investigation. Though if there were going to be a variance from that tradition if director Comey felt it was important in this instance to break with that rule, he should have gotten approval from the attorney general but he didn't do that and similar lay with regard to the letter. He wrote on the eve of the election announcing the reopening the investigation to Hillary Clinton that letter he wrote a had a significant potential impact on the. Election and nobody can measure what if any impact actually had but it's a very foundational rule. The Department of Justice should be cautious not to do things that are going to be perceived as interfering with the election, and the truth is that there was no need to write that letter Andy should not have done it, and again, if you were going to do it, he should gotten the personal approval of the Attorney General. Your memo specifically did not recommend that coming be fired and I I want to quote briefly from it. It says quote the FBI is unlikely to regain public and Congressional Trust until it has a director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them having refused to admit his errors, the director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions. Do believe the president made his decision to fire comey for the reasons laid out in your memo You Know Katie I had only a few hours to write that memo but I think it It fairly articulates my views as I said, understood the president was removing director comb. It wasn't my decision to do. So I was articulating what I believe the director done wrong and what's unspoken in a letter. But what you ought to know is that I actually view Jim Komi as a role model in the Bush administration has many of our US attorneys dead. He'd been a federal prosecutor. Career prosecutors. In fighting violent crime, he served as US Attorney and southern New York where they had a great track record, white collar crime, and then as deputy attorney general for a couple of years before becoming FBI director and everybody makes mistakes. I think has mistakes were significant but everybody makes mistakes. But one of the things that particularly troubled may and it's reflected in there is that director Comey was. Unapologetic about his mistakes and you may recall there was a congressional hearing a week or two before the director was fired in which he basically doubled down effect said that he he would have done it again if he had the chance and I thought that was deeply wrong and I was very disappointed that director Comey was unwilling to acknowledge that the decision he made was a bad decision. and. As far as the question you're asking me the president made the decision to remove director Komen. I can't speak for the President Katie has to what was in mind I know he's articulated a number of reasons but ultimately, it's his decision and it's not reviewable. Were you surprised that the White House publicly released your memo that that very same day and used it as their justification for combs firing. Everything that you in government you have to anticipate is going to be released at some point and so I certainly didn't anticipate the memo would remain secret. I was surprised when the some of the White House press folks released the memo and led the media to believe that I had initiated this effort to remove the director, which just isn't how it happened but but as far as the substance of the memo, I wrote it with the understanding that it might become public at some point and and I stand behind and as I said, I think most former officials in the department without regard to politics agree with the principles that articulated in the memo and would not want to see a future director make those decisions. So right as a former White House press secretary Aye insight into how they do things and why they do things and Sean Spicer was out that day and he said quote, it was all Rosenstein. No one from the White House Doj Decision We know from your answer and from your testimony that it was the president's decision. So how did you feel being put in the position by senior members of the White? House. Suggesting we'll saying outright that you had made the decision that the president had made the decision when you knew just the opposite was true. I think the problem Joe is you probably appreciate is that deputy attorney general you have responsibility from time to time to testify before Congress and there are a lot of folks in the White House who talked to the media a lot but never testified, and so I anticipate that I, I would be under oath at some point and have to explain my role in the firing of direct Komi and as a result, I was able to endorse any untrue version of events. I wouldn't have done in any way but my view is that it's wrong for the Department of Justice to. Do that. So I was disappointed about that in my view, is that the president has the right to make any decision you likes, and then they ought to be prepared to stand behind it. I had experienced myself when I was. US. Attorney in the Bush administration of seeing a similar dynamic clout with regard to the firings of about six US attorneys. You may recall that cost both the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales the deputy attorney general, Paul. McNulty. Their jobs, they had perfectly lawful right to replace US attorneys. But what happened was that the deputy attorney general went up to the hill. And provided reasons, it ultimately turned out not to be true for why the removals had been done, and so the lesson I learned from that, which I think is only a re emphasized by the Komi experiences that you can remove anybody you like, but you can't be untruthful about the reasons why you're doing it. Yaron shortly after that, the president went on television with Lester Holt and told the truth and said, it was because of Russia I mean did you feel betrayed by the president and the White House? Well. I don't WANNA debate. What was the truth I do recall the president saying that and obviously that created. A lot of concern the trails not a relevant issue and obviously created a lot of concern because it fueled a perception that the removal of the FBI director was in retaliation in some way for the Russia investigation and the perception that it was part of an effort to end the Russian investigation, which was not my view. Joe I I had nobody told me that the goal was to end the Russia investigation but he ordered me to end the Russia investigation and so that was not my understanding of why Director Comey was being removed. I understand that route but as said I, Think Multiple Times here is the president's decision. He has the right and when the president comes out and says, I've decided this and this is the reason I've decided for. You have every reason to believe that and it just puts you in a terribly awkward position and I I know at the time based on who you are. You Never GonNa say anything. So here we are now going to give chance to say something is there anything more you'd want to say on that? I don't think. So Joe, I mean you know I think that the mother report obviously is the best public record about what happened around that period of time and I really don't have anything to add to it as I said I the firing of Jim Komi in my view is the prerogative of the president My memo accurately reflects what I believed Jim Komiya had done wrong. It's corroborated by the report of the Inspector General and so that's the record it is what it is. Because of the memo and because of the subsequent interviews, the president gave and the circumstances of the firing of Jim Komi became an important part of the obstruction case. Did you consider recusing yourself and if you didn't, why didn't you? Well I certainly considered it. In the sense that I talked with the ethics expert on my staff about weather refusal was warranted and the determination was that it was not now in theory you can always refuse as discretionary matter. You can decide that You don't WanNa deal with the issue and so you can step out but I felt that that would be irresponsible on my part. No matter who Wound, up in the line of fire for this, it was going to be very unpleasant and so I thought it'd be responsible to me to step out unless there were a legal justification for me to do it. So once the I I discussed with ethics expert determined that there was no requirement for recusals I did not recuse but I I, would have happily if the determination had. been otherwise, but I think part of this impetus. This thought that I had some obligation recused is fueled by misperception about what had happened by the The thought that I was somehow trying to cover up for the president but there was never any inconsistency about the memo that I wrote and the reason why I it, and so I don't think any need for recused lever rose? So it's been reported by multiple news outlets that around the same time that all of this was happening that you were in a conversation and suggested wearing a wire to record president trump just tell us if you will what are the circumstances around that story and that conversation. The other but a lot of stories that have come out about that period of time and most of them are unattributed. So I'm not sure whether they're firsthand participants or whether they're people spinning what they think happened in these meetings. But essentially Katie what happened was there was an ongoing covert investigation. The Russia investigation involved a classified National Security Investigation? As well as related criminal investigations in the course of those investigations Andrew. McCabe has talked publicly about some of the things that happened and in addition to that, there's a memo that Mr McCabe wrote that the department has released and declassified the majority of the investigation though remains classified. So you know someday if the department does make the decision to declassify the whole thing I'll be free to talk more broadly about it but what I can't tell you with regard to that particular issue is. That Andrew McCabe. And I worked together for a long period of time. We didn't always agree on things at the beginning investigation as you know, Andy surprise me with some information some things that he had done. I determined that it would be appropriate to replace Andy as leader the investigation because I concluded that he engaged in this conduct I didn't at the time but because I believe it was a better for. The integrity, the investigation to have it conducted by somebody independent without the history that Andy and had with Jim Komi, and with the president and so Andy May bear a grudge against me for that as well as the fact that he was subsequently fired but but at the time Mr, Mackay Busy articulates in his memo at open certain investigations and I had a discussion with him about what investigative steps he wanted to pursue. He determined that there was not a need to record conversation with the president either his remind because keep in mind Andy's theory was that the president was trying to obstruct the investigation by influencing the FBI director, not the deputy attorney general but the FBI Director and he of course was the acting director and a candidate to be the presidential nominee for FBI, director. But the bottom line Katie is that no recordings were made I did not intend to. Record conversations with the president but I should add if I believe that the president or anybody else was trying to engage me in criminal activity I would have recorded them. I didn't need any McCain's permission to do that. The bottom line is that I just did not believe that obviously I knew the president's views about the investigation he's very public about it but I never felt that the president was trying to involve me in any criminal activity. The. So there is a book coming out this week by Jeffrey toobin called true crimes and misdemeanors, and he quotes this back and forth with with you and McCabe it is not sourced and we can all have our own suspicions about where the information came from but I'm Gonna I'm GonNa read it to you to get your gauge on on its accuracy. It's quote. What would we do in an obstruction investigation in a normal case Rosenstein asked the group more or less rhetorically quote while the whole point is to capture their intent state of mind. We'd find an informant to wire up to get admissions. We could do the same thing here and then and goes on to write quote then Rosenstein explained how the team might go about collecting evidence on the president. Quote attributed to you know one searches me when I go to the White House he went on quote I could wear a wire and get admissions from trump no problem is that accurate? No that's not an accurate quotation Katie and You know some of it strikes me as somebody else's reasoning rather than mine but but certainly, the issue of Howley medications going to be conducted was a matter of discussion What Mr Mackay Plan to do I still don't know what McCain is planned to do. He's talked about the investigation quite a bit, but he's never really explained what he would have done differently or what he believes should have been done in the course of the investigation but I believe we made the right decisions and I'm not gonNA argue about what words were used those are not accurate quotations but we did have a conversation about how the investigation was going to be conducted because that obviously was of great importance to me and ultimately would have been my responsibility so that part of it is accurate. But shift we can to Bob Muller. Who eventually became the special counsel when you reached out to him, did you have in your mind? He might be the special counsel where you Looking to get some inside over who should run the FBI what what what was your thinking when you reach out to? Actually both Joe we had You know there was a lot going on in the first couple of weeks of that I was on the job one of which was important. She was that we needed a new FBI director and there was an urgency about finding appropriate candidates and. Attorney General and I, and ultimately the president talked about mother for his advice and so that was one issue and I also ask director Mueller a couple of days before I appointed him whether he would be willing to serve as special counsel if I determined it to be appropriate and I made clear to him in that first conversation I had not made a decision but. When you're in a job like that, show you you. You need to know what your options are and so I thought it was important for me to to know whether or not somebody with the stature inexperience a Bob Muller would be willing to do the job because if I were to appoint a special counsel, which ultimately I decided to do I wanted to make sure that it would make things better not worse in terms of introducing conflicts or apparent conflicts into the investigation and so obviously everybody on all sides takes issue. With Director Muller for one reason or another that's the nature of the job. But I believe that adding director Muller to the investigation and removing Mr Mackay from the chain of command at that time was the right decision in terms of promoting confidence in the integrity of the investigation. One of the things the president likes to say what he goes after Bob Mower is the day before he was appointed special counsel he came to the White House and using the president's were begged to be the director of the FBI. Was that your impression of what Bob Muller was doing that day. No Bob Muller based on my experience. He did not want to be director of the FBI again, he'd already done it. He does entire ten year term they drafted him for another two and based on my conversations with Bob Muller at the time. I don't believe he had any desire to be director again. So for you what was the tipping point? I mean, obviously, this was a a short period of time and there was a lot of pressure on you. What was the tipping point for you that a special counsel was needed? Joe The decision to appoint a special counsel? Is a function of all the facts and circumstances at the time, and so it would be unfair for me to identify tipping point as in one thing that mattered more than all others I sat down talk with my team and ultimately made the decision that based upon everything that had happened and everything I. Knew, which included, of course, the ongoing criminal investigations and what I viewed as the most important issue, which was the Russian efforts interfere with the election, not just the twenty sixteen election but ongoing Russian efforts which I have every reason to believe continue today I had a responsibility to make sure that investigation was done responsibility to make sure it was done properly with the maximum public confidence in. The outcome and I determined that under all those circumstances the best way to get that done in a way that would allow people have confidence in the results was to bring in somebody with the experiencing stature. Bob Muller and to replace Mr McCabe, and I still believe that obviously people can take issue with the outcome in the investigation I know there are obviously a lot of strong disagreements about volume to the obstruction portion of Mr Mueller's report. But the most important part of that report is actually volume one, and in fact, volume to largely concerned things that had not happened yet at that time and I believe with regard to volume one with regard to the fact that the the. Did. Take active measures to try to sway. American. Opinions and try to shake confidence in democracy and lament unrest in America and number two that the evidence did not support a conclusion that participants in the trump campaign conspired with those Russians those with critical findings of the investigation. So, this wasn't your first experience investigating the executive branches. We talked about earlier you served as an associate independent counsel under Ken Starr. Did you give Bob Muller any advice or guidance from your experience during the Whitewater investigation? Yes, I did in two respects number one, the I really three respects number one the special counsel is not an independent council and the difference is primarily structural that as an independent council does not report to the attorney general but there are other implications of that and one of them is that the attorney general retains the responsibility or in my case, the acting attorney general retains the responsibility for supervising the special counsel and for being politically accountable for the decisions that he or she makes, and so I made clear to Director Muller that that was the relationship that we would have that he. Was a subordinate official department of Justice I pointed a team of senior officials in the department both career non-career who spoke with a director, Muller and his team on a regular basis monitor. What they did, we submitted all charges that normally would require approval of components the Department of Justice, the tax division, the Criminal Division, the National Security Division we submitted those through the ordinary course for review and approval when appropriate and so those rules had to be followed. I also explained to Director Muller that the goal this investigation was to get to the bottom line quickly the bottom line being. Is there evidence that would support criminal charges against Russians who interfered in the election and number two? Is there evidence that would support prosecution of people who conspired with them or who McKay false statements and obstructed the investigation because a number of the open criminal cases at the time related to obstruction and false statements, and that's something also, that's really misunderstood. Many reports a critiques of my role in the investigation describe me a starting it. But the reality is that there were investigations ongoing. There were dozens probably scores, a federal agents conducting those investigations and federal prosecutors in several offices were. Engaged in the investigation and so what I did was tempted to corral all that gave it to somebody I trusted to review the evidence determine which matters warranted further investigation which did not, and so the directions I gave the Director Muller Word to narrow the investigation to focus on the key issues. The Whitewater investigation as you know went off and in many different directions, that's not a critique of Ken Starr was just a very different model. The goal here was to resolve the core issues quickly and to avoid getting distracted by things that we're not central to resolving those core issues. So, right. The president tweeted more than two hundred, Fifty Times about Bob Muller, his investigation he called more dirty, corrupt and conflicted called the investigation, a witch-hunt hoax scam. Do, you agree with any of that. No. You think that that had any impact on the investigation. I don't believe it had an impact on the investigation. It certainly had an impact on public perceptions of the investigation and I think that that's unfortunate but but the people who are conducting that investigation were accustomed to being in circumstances that were politically sensitive Bob Muller like me had been around the department for Longtime. He seen other instances flare up. It's funny Joe Some of the younger folks work within the Department thought that we were in unprecedented times and obviously with the assistance of the Internet and the president's ability to articulate his thoughts and immediately spread them to millions of people. That's that's a novel method but in. Terms of the the nature of the investigation and the pushback that we got I know you around the Clinton White House and you're you're aware that the similar things happened in the Clinton administration going back to my experience joining the Department in Nineteen Ninety when bill was Attorney General of first time and nineteen, ninety, two and nineteen ninety-three he appointed several special counsel to investigate sensitive matters. So these things do flare up from time to time and you need to make sure that the people that you're entrusting with these investigations understand that they're going to take some heat and they've got to stay focused on their mission. Can stay on tweets just for a second as a little off subject but the president has tweeted repeatedly over the last six to twelve months. That President Obama. Let us spying effort against his campaign and committed illegal acts. Did you see anything at your time at Department of Justice that indicated President Obama had committed a crime? No I didn't you know this. Durham investigation going on for some time and I anticipate that At some point we'll see the results of that investigation, and then we'll hopefully put this entire issue to bed but But no, I didn't see that and whether you characterize what the FBI was doing as spying or not You know that may be a matter of interpretation. But in terms of an effort to get information that could be used against the political campaign, I did not see any evidence of that and I would assume you pay. Somewhat careful attention to the president's tweets since he was tweeting very often is that correct? I think it would be fair to say Joe that I was painfully aware but I try not to pay too much attention. Do you think last question on this and I'll let you off the hook attorney general bar before Congress said that he wasn't aware of the president's tweets. That's seemed very unlikely to me. 'cause his tweets were about DOJ in the investigation. I did not watch general bars testimony but I certainly think it's credible. The bill bar doesn't follow twitter. So if the information came to his attention, presumably would be through a media reports, immediate briefings from his aid but. Certainly, not following twitter on a daily basis. So. Let's go back in time just a little bit before the Muller report came out attorney general sessions resigned in November of two thousand and eighteen at what point did your oversight of the Mueller Investigation and Well, technically, my oversight ended then in a sense that the. Special Counsel report to the Attorney General or the Acting Attorney General and upon general sessions resignation. Matt Whitaker was appointed Acting Attorney General and therefore became responsible for overseeing the investigation but number one. Gerald Whitaker, actually took a couple of weeks to clear the ethics issues until he fully asserted control and number two. I and my team had been managing this rating months and so we continue to serve to play a role there but but Matt actually appointed his own Stafford to see the special counsel investigation and so after the ethics that she was cleared. was responsible for signing off on any final decisions. So, attorney general bar takes over eventually and a special counsel mower finishes his report and the Attorney General took. What a lot of people thought was an unusual step before the report was ready to be issued to the public, which again, he didn't have to do that. He held a press conference and released a four page sweater summarizing the more. report that became a very controversial issue there. There are many myself included the felt like that that prejudiced the report and that there was intent there by attorney general bar to before the full volumes of the report came out to create an impression about what was in the report were you involved in that decision and why was Attorney General Guard doing that? Job, I don't want to speak for turn general Bar I think he's been asked this at least one of the hearings and he's provided his own answers. Bill Barham makes decisions. I. Was certainly around the Department and I was involved in certainly consulted with General Bar and As he explained I agreed with the conclusion that the evidence collected by the special counsel did not warrant any additional prosecutions. Now, the decision about what to tell the public in and whether they're hold a press conference. Joe There aren't any rules about that. Right the the investigation has been concluded. The decisions have been made and German bar made a decision that he should explain his views to the public and He had a legal right to do that and people have criticized him for it. people have questioned whether violates department policies I I don't think it does violate department policies of did the inspector. General would be able to investigate it, but that's a decision that general barmaid and I think it's important to distinguish Joe the role of the Department of Justice in Criminal Investigation is to determine whether or not a prosecution should be pursued. You make that decision and in the ordinary case, you close your files and go home. This was an extraordinary case because upon making that decision, the attorney general had an. Had decided that he was going to release to the Congress and the public, the entire Muller report with only those reductions that are required by law, and I think if you're going to criticize the Attorney General for expressing his opinion about it, you ought to give some acknowledgement to the fact that you know he made that decision to release that report to the public so people are free to. To make their own decisions and as I said, the department had already made his decision. If Congress was going to take any action on that they're not bound by anything that it turns your own Barr says so I think some of that criticism is unfair. How about the idea though that he gave his opinion of the report two weeks before people had a chance to read it for themselves. I don't know that I would agree with that. He initially wrote the letter through four page letter where he summarized what he referred to as the principal conclusions of the report and people pointed out that it's it's incomplete but obviously, it's a four page summary of the principal conclusions of a report that several hundred pages, but he had committed to release the entire report to the public. So ultimately, Joey did that and people are free to draw their own conclusions. So I think that If folks in the Congress, for example, read that report and believe that additional action is required with their free to take attorney general does not control what they do. Now. In the wetter. He's he's sites the fact that you agreed with him that there wasn't sufficient evidence. So established at the president, committed. Obstruction of justice, Katie is the lawyer here on our words matter team I'm not. So you can. You can set me straight but you know I watched the Lester Holt interview and the President says straight out of his mouth he fired Komi because of the Russian investigation is several conversations with Don mcgann trying to get other people fired company so I guess I'm trying to understand How both you and a g bar came to that conclusion and I'm also informed by some two thousand prosecutors thought the president obstructed justice. You know Joe I don't know how much those prosecutors knew about the facts or whether they had ever personally prosecuted obstruction cases. I can only draw in my own experience having been in the Department for thirty years much of that doing public corruption work handling obstruction and other similar cases. My conclusion was that the evidence set forth in that report would not. Warrant Prosecution and obviously. Journal released a report that freed people to express their own opinion but it remains my opinion that the evidence would not support it that if you tried to go to trial on that evidence, you would not get a conviction. You might not even get to a jury because the judge might find the evidence insufficient to prove the elements. The crime and the reason for that Joe is that the the that the president may have wanted the investigation and is not sufficient to constitute obstruction of justice you need to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the president was acting with corrupt intent and that's the key element you need to prove and you need to prove it to the unanimous satisfaction of. Jury, you'd need to face you need introduce witnesses who are going to be cross examined in the defense would be able to introduce their own witnesses. So you have to read a letter or even read a report and just toss off the that Gee I think that's obstruction. That's just not the way it works to make a decision like that would take. Take a commitment by federal prosecutors who believed they were prepared to prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt and and I don't think that's true. So we have a couple I just have a couple of questions that I'm sure our listeners would love to hear your take on and they're broad issues not necessarily on this one. Why is it that it's department justice policy or guidelines that a president should not be indicted? That issue has been addressed to separate times in the Nixon, administration. So Republican lawyers in the department reach that conclusion, and again in the Clinton administration the so democratic law reach that conclusion and the decision is based on the impracticality sets a number one, the impracticality of Hong the president to court on criminal charges number two, the structural challenge since the president is in fact, the head of the executive branch and so in A. Sense all criminal cases are brought under the presence authority as a legal matter. It would be in the view of the folks who wrote those memos unconstitutional. Now, my view is that if a case were to arise in which the evidence justified prosecution of the president somebody came to me when I was deputy attorney general and said, we believe this evidence merits prosecution of the president. Then we'd have to take a close look at that policy. And determine whether or not. We felt bound by it because it's not law just the interpretation of these lawyers and could always be changed but but my view is that is fundamentally correct that if if you determined the president had committed a crime that merited prosecution to prosecute him while he's in office would not be practical and so then you need to consider whether there are other remedies such as referring it to Congress to. Make a determination whether or not Congress determined that impeachment was appropriate, which is basically what can start it in Whitewater I was not involved in the aspect investigation, but you'd have to reach that decision at that point but my view is that The policy does not prohibit from conducting investigations. We still obligation to conduct an investigation, but it might at the of the day preclude us from filing prosecution while the president was in office. Last question on this I was involved in Whitewater, which turned into the the impeachment investigation in that a best education, the independent counsel and I understand it's different than the special counsel subpoenaed President and ended up compelling the President to testify under oath. What's your view on whether president trump should have been compelled to testify under oath. Joe the, special counsel I think testified about this last year and his hearing, and he determined not to pursue that, and so ultimately, I did not have to face that issue. If he had presented as a recommendation that he believed the evidence warranted a subpoena to the President I would review that evidence consult with advisers and that would have been a very challenging decision for us to make. But The issue did not arise because a special counsel did not believe It was the right move and part of that rationale of course, is that it would have taken a very long time. President presumably would have objected it would have been litigated longtime would have gone by and so with the special counsel had away was the significance of the allegations the time it was going to take a and the and the probability of developing evidence as a result of that process and and he determined not to do it. So that's a very good example of the kind of decision that I think needs to be left in the first instance to an independent prosecutor and That's the point that was the point of appointing director mother is so that that decision would be made independently politics whether you agree or disagree with what director Mueller did I think everybody recognizes that he's. Somebody, who has an extraordinary record of ignoring politics and and doing what he believed to be the right thing. So last question here that ends things about a month after the report came out a little bit over a month after that on April twenty ninth two, thousand nineteen. That's when you submitted your resignation letter to President Trump and I want to quote from that briefly you said I'm grateful. To you for the opportunity to serve for the courtesy and humor you often display our personal conversations and for the goals you set in your inaugural address, patriotism, unity. Safety Education and prosperity because a nation exists to its citizens. Now I know, we don't talk about personal conversations with the presence we serves but courtesy and humor and unity aren't things. We usually associate with Donald Trump. So why those particular words? Katie actually did I was grateful for the fact that despite what the president saying publicly and sometimes saying tweets that he was courteous in his personal actions with me and and he also often displayed a sense of humor. People don't often see that and you certainly don't see that at some angry press conferences that he holds but that's what I saw and I thought. It was important for me in that letter to articulate two things number one how I felt about the Department of Justice I. A believer in the principles, the Department of Justice and most importantly I know from experience we should have great confidence in the personnel, the Department of Justice that's not to say, they don't make mistakes but we do have internal affairs officers. We have corrective mechanisms in the department we hundred ten, thousand employees and people are GonNa make mistakes but but we have mechanisms to correct them and so based upon that I have tremendous confidence in the Integrity Department of Justice and I have tremendous gratitude for the folks who serve in the department number two Katie Hi. Actually. was grateful to the president for put in that job and for allowing me to do the job. Yeah. Despite obviously the the tweets and the attacks which I could have done without the bottom line is that he did allow me to finish that investigation despite the fact that it a lot of people whispering in his ear that he should terminate me or and the investigation, and so that's what's reflected in that letter I spent thirty years in the department I'm proud of what compass there I'm proud of the work that I my colleagues did in the department and it's unfortunate. that. The public it's different impression because all you hear about the department, of justice allegations about alleged wrongdoing often you hear it from people who have a partisan view of what the department does. But if you look at the day to day work of those one, hundred, ten, thousand people in the Department of Justice I think Americans would be very proud of of what they're doing in their behalf. Rod You've been really generous with your time. I want to ask you a couple quick questions before we let you go. There some of the things that Muller worked on in the prosecutions in the convictions he got you are still in the news. So I want to ask you about a couple of those Michael Flynn who he got a guilty plea out of the Department of Justice now went to the court to try to have that overturned. Did that undermined the work of Muller and the work that's Department of Justice had done at the time? no didn't in my view Joe. I don't talk about pending cases, and so I can't talk directly about that case. But what I can tell you is that I've worked on many cases and supervise many cases in my career, and typically when a defendant is represented by a good lawyers which General Flynn was and comes in and pleads guilty and acknowledges that they willfully made a false statement you typically can be confident that they did. So it was quite a surprise to me. When those facts developed in the departments pleading that was filed early this year I've been gone for about a year at that point. So I don't have any personal knowledge of the information that came to light in that bleeding but I, think to wait see I haven't heard any allegation You know that any particular prosecutor engaged in wrongdoing obviously, people could disagree about what is or is not exculpatory evidence and I think ultimately, we have to wait and let the courts sorted out. There were a fair number of prosecutors who didn't want to put their name on that pleading and some whoever signed that one case that is is over. Is the Roger Stone case. This is a case that turn general bar admitted last week that he personally intervened in he's a registered as a friend of the president does that sort of personal intervention? Create. A structural problem and perception problem for DOJ. So. First of all, it's not really over as I tell people in Washington, it's never over. The stone case, he's not going to prison, but the case actually remains in court on that issue I think we have to distinguish between obviously the perception and reality. The perception is there. It's unavoidable I think everybody recognizes that but on the other hand as attorney general said. It's actually the judges responsibility to determine the appropriate sentence and the judge did agree with Bill. Bar. So the prosecutors are certainly right that in the ordinary case, they would recommend a sentence the fell into the sentencing guidelines and let judge make the determination. So it's unusual to have a supervisor step in and lower the recommendation But at the end of the day, the judge made that decision and I think that people have criticized bill bar for that Phil also to give him credit for the fact that he has defended the conviction and he has stated that he believes that the sense that was imposed by the judge was correct and according to. Media reports which I believe are probably credible. He was not in favor of the commutation. So So yes, it's unfortunate. Yes I know it does create that that perception, and obviously I would have preferred that it not be handled the way that it was handled. My last question, a personal one having been in and around Washington for a long time there was a period of time i. don't remember the exact week where every time you turned on the News, you saw a headline saying Rod Rosenstein being fired today, Rod. Rosenstein going to the White House to be fired you were not. But how did that feel during that week when you know everyone the world was speculating on what your future was. You know it's interesting. Joe. Living through that kind of experience an end. It is novel in the sense that you know this this twenty, four, seven media cycle in the real time coverage on the Internet didn't exist when you're in the White House twenty years ago. But you do develop a sense of humor about it after a while two teenage daughters and they would see these reports on the news and I would tell them look if I actually get fire to let you know. Otherwise, try to avoid traffic nor the media, and of course, what you appreciate which a lot of people don't appreciate is that getting fired from political job is not the end of the world you move on, it's intended to be a short term job you move on other things and so there are a lot of things worse than being fired being rumored to be fired but you know in This administration I think people have gotten used to that the president obviously has shown a willingness to fires on people and often speculates about it or at least stories flowed out that he's speculating about firing one person or another, and so you developed kind of gallow sense of humor about it and I hope that if you talked you know my staff, the folks I worked with day in and day out. That, they would tell you that we largely just tried to ignore that I didn't watch TV I didn't follow twitter. My days were filled with meetings and. Decisions memos coming across my desk, and so we did our best to try to try to tune that out as a matter of fact I I- banned the Deputy Attorney General's office from having a television set on. As you know, that's the thing to do in Washington every office you walk into a four panel TV. So they're following the breaking news because the message that I gave to my team was that we need to be worried about what's going to happen to the country in the next thirty years not just the next thirty minutes I hope we succeeded in doing that. Well. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us today Rodney. We appreciate it. You're welcome. Glad to be with. Thank you, Rod. We hope you found our conversation with Rod Rosenstein and formative and that you'll continue to tune in the worst matter. As we mentioned you can listen to the podcast feed for free for the next few weeks. But it will soon be available exclusively for members of cafe. Insider. To Join and get two free weeks heads a cafe dot com slash work. That's cafe dot com slash words. That's it. For this week's episode of words. Matter your hosts are Joe Lockhart and Katie Barlow the executive producer is Adam. Where it's matters produced in association with Cafe Studios, the executive producer of cafes, Tamara Separa- audio production by the Hanger Studios. Thank you for listening towards matter please rate and review words matter Apple podcasts or wherever you get your shows.

president Deputy Attorney General FBI Attorney General Justice Department director. Joe attorney Director Muller White House Director James Comey Katie Jim Komi President Obama Russia Senate United States special counsel US Attorney Attorney
Ex-DOJ official: Weak Rosenstein let Trump, Barr use him

The Beat with Ari Melber

45:20 min | 2 years ago

Ex-DOJ official: Weak Rosenstein let Trump, Barr use him

"This episode is brought to you by GS K. For years, we have relied on antibiotics, but what happens if they stop working and a once treatable infection could be fatal at GS K. We're one of the few companies continuing to invest in a new generation of antibiotics through our own dedicated team and by working with other scientists because antibiotic resistance isn't a problem of the future. It's already here we begin tonight with breaking news. The breaking news on this Friday evening, a new Muller related story. And this one calls into question the judgment and performance of Bob molars, boss, rod Rosenstein, it's a new story. Hot off the presses of the Washington Post and it accounts for a time when Mr. Rosenstein was trying to save his job. You may remember that New York Times account about him wearing a wire you see the headline in the post I can land the plane how Rosenstein tried to mollify Trump. Protect Muller and save his job the post reporting that has Rosenstein made that desperate effort or at least tried to resign with dignity. He began by one account getting teary-eyed as he had a call with President Trump. Well, right before that you see right here. It says he had a meeting with Trump's chief of staff, and he tried to diffuse that volatile situation over the reports that he may have talked about wiretapping the president. He told the president look I'm on your team. This is something that we should know. Bob mueller. Never did. It's something Jeff Sessions never did. The post reporting the Rosenstein us his access to Trump to try to meld his own career survival with Trump's like legal liability saying that in the investigation of Russia's interference in the two thousand sixteen election would be resolved. And he told the president he would make sure Trump would be treated fairly the post quoting sources who described this. And I'm reading here from the account. He says Rosenstein says I give the investigation credibility quote. And this is the quote, a lot of people are talking about I can land the plane now the bottom line is that Donald Trump, according to this new blistering account in the Washington Post left that meeting telling folks that he felt that that Donald Trump felt rod Rosenstein was on his team. Now this story tonight is more than palace intrigue. This is a story about how the entire Muller probe was wrapped up about whether rod Rosenstein was the right person for the job, or according to another person who's quoted in this story. So when you may have heard of. MSNBC analyst Matt Miller says that it shows Rosenstein was just too weak to stand up to Trump and one more point before I go out to our panel on this breaking news, rod Rosenstein, according to the Washington Post to cow. Also, tried to assure Trump near the end of the road that he was not a quote target of the pro. Of course, if you've heard about the Miller report, it deeply investigates and probes the criminal evidence against Donald Trump on a range of obstruction cases, meaning as a normal citizen. He certainly would be considered something in the area of a potential target Rosenstein does deny aspects of this story. He says in a new statement. And that's how you know. It's a big story because Rosenstein, speaking on the record he says in a new statement that he just told Trump what he tells everyone that he would try to resolve this probe fairly an expeditiously. But telling people who are the subject of the probe that you are not a target would seem to go beyond what Muller had done, and what Muller wanted it also raises fresh questions about some of the big mysteries in this. Case maybe Donald Trump wasn't feeling that much heat to sit down for an in person interview with Bob Muller, if he thought rod Rosenstein was his employees and on his team. Let me get out to our great guests tonight. I am joined by gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor Katty Kay from the BBC. And Matt Miller who has I mentioned is not only a former DOJ official under the holder Obama administration. But also as quoted directly in this piece, the Washington Post wanted your view, and so do we met? What does it all mean? Look, I think there's no way to look at this action by the deputy attorney general the other than inappropriate unethical. I don't know how many times we've talked on this network. The last two years about how the fundamental rule of DOJ when it when it comes to investigations involving the White House's you do not talk with the president or anyone involved with the president anyone who works for him about those investigations they're supposed to be a bright line. And here you have the the deputy attorney general not only talking about the investigation but giving the president assurances about. The investigation. And what makes it so much worse is that he's giving those assurances in the context of a time where he's pleading and begging for his job trying to hang onto his job. And so if you're the president, you know, you have the deputy attorney general at your mercy and the deputy turn turn jails making assurances, and I think the quote, I had the story that you referred to. I think he's just been a week deputy Torney general all along. And there are times our history where that would be fine. But this is a time we need a turns Inc. Match wrong. And you say week Matt do you mean week as a view, some people are strong, some people are weak or you mean week to the point of being inappropriate in his oversight of the pro week that in that he allows the president first and then later Bill bar to push him into doing things he shouldn't do, and I'll give you some examples obviously writing the Komi memo when we now know because we've read the mall report, he knew that the president was firing Komi for other reasons letting himself be used as the pretext inappropriately to fire Jim Komi when he should have stood up for the department. He was weak thin. He was week when he asked the inspector general to investigate a trumped up charge by the president that there was no evidence to substantiate adding fuel to the to the claims that that Republicans on the hill and the president were making about some conspiracy and some coup DOJ, and he was week when he allowed the when he allowed his name to be used with the attorney general in that that letter the attorney General Sin, and then in that press conference to mislead the American public about the the results of the mullahs report, we need him to be strong throughout this investigation. Yes, he. Texted some to some extent. But I think he was always telling himself I can make these little compromises, I'll do this. I'll take this little step to the president wants to protect the investigation. And that's not what you're supposed to say. Mr President this is wrong. If you want to fire me, you can fire me and you'll pay the political consequences for it. Gene, are you as concerned as Matt? Oh, Matt Miller hit the nail on the head. And the sad thing about this whole process. And what we're hearing Ari is there is a huge cloud over the department of Justice and rule of laws now tainted here's my main complaint against rod Rosenstein, and I was very complimentary of him when he was appointed. And I worked with him when he was a US attorney. He is telling a potential target not just to subject a potential target because the president is in unindicted conspirator in New York. He's telling the president he's gonna land the plane for him. And this goes back to what Michael Cohen said they talk in code and was rod Rosenstein, basically, telling the president, I got your back and by saying that Ari and you had hit a key issue by ten. The president that that that and the president United States to basically give his finger to Robert Muller and give thirty seven I do not recall on written answers and say, I'm not going to testify under oath. Gene. Do you see those as link because we always want to be clear here, Mr. Rosenstein has every right in his capacity as molars boss to state his views or even to disagree with Muller on investigative calls. That would be on the record though. In other words, if they ever disagreed as as folks, I think may recall from all of our reporting on the rules. Congress would be notified about that. Do you view this as potentially more appropriate because it has the potential appearance? Not have a good faith disagreement about the probe, but a private would what lawyers would call an in a sidebar between the guy running the probe and the guy who potential target of the probe which undercuts Moller's actual litigation positions. What I'm saying? Is it was highly inappropriate and Mattis right for the basically the head of the department of Justice to meet with the president and discuss the progress of an investigation. Essentially, he did that and talk about the president status. Can you imagine if President Barack Obama were in the same shoes as Donald Trump and the Loretta Lynch or her deputy gone on a plane and basically begged for their job back? The Republicans would have impeachment hearings for God's sakes. Kathi landing the plane tonight is a pretty controversial phrase. Take a listen to someone else who use the same phrases. He addition for his Trump job. Has anyone in the White House seen any of the report I'm not going to I'm not going to as I say, I'm landing the plane right now. And you know, I've been willing to discuss my my my letters and the process going forward. Catty? Yeah. It did make you wonder whether it was a memo going around DOJ that the way to satisfy the president is to use this phrase landing the plane load of questions coming out of the story. One is why were road Rosenstein was so desperate to keep his job. He's he comes across in. This story is almost grove alling to the president to try and keep his position as deputy attorney general questions, I think congress is going to want to us won't exactly do you mean by that phrase landing the plane, especially in the context of the fact that you're in the conversation in which you are also reportedly have said that you are on the president's team. Why are you having this conversation six months before Moore Ashley submits his report does that suggest that you had already formed your conclusions about the report and that you could have that report be favorable to the president? I think that question is very worth asking Rosenstein. And it's so ironic that that we have Rosenstein last night in New York, slamming, the Obama administration and. Phrasing. President Trump for the rule of role when we know that President Trump asked him to change his version of what happened over the firing of Jim Komi. Like, the good reporter you are. You're all over the the details. We have that. So let's play that and get your analysis of it. This was rod Rosenstein, making other ways as you say Katty last night. Some of the nonsense passes for breaking news today would not be worth the paper. It was printing on if anybody bothered to printing it was days. Once the question that I get from reporters. Is is it true that you got angry and emotional few times over the past few years. Heck, yes, didn't you? Some critical citizens about that Russian does the Asian were made before I got the previous administration chose not to publicize the full story about Russian computer hackers and social media trolls and how they relate to Russia's broader strategy to undermine America. Caddie? Yeah. I mean, it was a news weather speech because there was road Rosenstein, being so defined and in and in several instances, again a little bit doing what I think we're hearing him having done in this post report, which is speaking in a way that he knows is going to carry favor with the president talking about the fact that in journalism the rules of evidence. Don't apply that's pretty rich coming from an administration where the Washington Post is accounted several thousand incidents of the president note. I she telling the truth. And I it happens in Trump's world that people seem desperate to curry favor with him almost two degree that they seem afraid of him. And the impact he can have on their lives. Matt I wonder if you could walk us through the Washington part of this because I think what I hear from people when I talked to to viewers. Sometimes people say why is everyone so desperate to hold onto these jobs for just a little bit longer. Or so worried about how they're going to end the post to Cal I dealt with some of the legal details, but other details in there that are just sort of juicy are Rosenstein allegedly telling other White House staff, not the president. Look I'll resign if I need to over this New York Times account about the alleged wire, but I don't wanna be fired by tweet. I don't wanna go out with a tweet Matt you may recognize clearly rod Rosenstein, a big fan of classic cypress hill. Basically saying I going out like that. But why would someone care so much about what are they go out with a tweet or not I would think there was so many other more important matters of integrity that we're testing rather than whether the president was in artful and firing him. It happened that way it is the question that that has baffled. I think me, and obviously you and lots of other people about not just rod Rosenstein, but everyone in this administration that they sing so worried about the president's attacks on them rather than doing the right thing. And then letting the American people judge whether they've done the right thing or not I thought all along when when rod Rosenstein was being pressured by the White House, I on the Komi firing then with all the times, the president was attacking the investigation attacking the Justice department when he's talked to him about it privately. Russia's said privately to the President Mr President. I'm not gonna talk to you about this investigation. If you wanna fire me fire me when he attacked him publicly Raj to stood up for the department said, you know, what we don't conduct spying operations here. We don't conduct coups. We're not trying to overthrow the government. We're conducting awfully predicated investigations. And if the president wanted to fire him that would improve rod Rosenstein reputation because he would have been shown like Elliot Richardson during during Watergate, and like William Brooklyn, south the deputy attorney Joe that he did the right thing and stood up to a president. And broad roads. The Stein never thought that I think his legacy will be will be. Tarnished because of it. I think you put it very very intelligently caddy. I wonder such a student of washing whether you agree because look James Comey's controversial for many reasons. He doesn't have a perfect record. We've reported on some of that. I don't think most reasonable law enforcement experts legal experts and people who follow the news, frankly, blamed James Komi for the Unser Omonia sway. The Donald Trump fired him a man who had security because he walked around serving this country. I think people whatever they think Mr. Comey's tenure viewed that as a reflection of Trump, not Qomi. Why would that not apply to Matt's to Matt's? Excellent summation here to Rosenstein, right, which is the Twitter argument. Right. He clearly was referring there in this reporting. Jim come in the way that Jim Komi was fired the conundrum with Rosenstein, the hallway through this as being how he tried to balance keeping President Trump happy and yet at the same time acting to try to protect the special counsel and the investigation a not have to fire Bob moon. And I think a lot of us thought that there were points four and against Rosenstein handling of this whole affair between last night. And today's reporting in the Washington Post, I do think it gives a slightly different interpretation of the way and Matt's suggesting that he's picked up on this all the way along. But I think we see a different to the way road Rosenstein handled himself, which is that he was desperate to keep Donald Trump. Happy above all to the extent that he puts himself in. What must be a certainly precarious position by saying I'm on your team over this. And having this conversation that he should not have been having. If he was an independent deputy attorney general with the president talking about him being a subject and the semantics of subject and target Ryan dispute later, but having the conversation he had is clearly inappropriate. Very well put I mean, both of you are so convincing, gene. I want to land the plane of this conversation with you if you will. But I don't mean in the obstruction. He sense of the word that is I want to close with the part of this that seems so unnecessary. Which is we've been very careful to point out in our coverage that wall part one of the mobile report shows great problems at our system and terrible judgment. It doesn't show according to Bob Muller chargeable criminal offenses and part two is ultimately if you follow the constitution Congress's judgment to make and so far six days out of the Miller report. Choose me eight days out of the Miller report. They're not exactly racing to immediately remove the president given all that. Can you explain, gene? Why with that arguably good news for the White House? There was all these other efforts to put the thumb on the scale to overdo it to mischaracterize from Barda now Rosenthal. Line to the private claims about the target. Why do all that when as I just fairly reported? There is a reasonable case for why it wasn't even that bad to begin with for them. And they didn't need to even do this to say nothing of the integrity questions that Matt and and caddy have. So so eloquently stated well, I can answer that very simply based on thirty years or DOJ if Donald Trump's last name were Smith, and he was a private citizen based on the conduct alleged in volume two of that report, he would have been indicted on campaign violations and also obstruction of Justice. And I agree that volume one doesn't charge a conspiracy or have evidence of a conspiracy. Although there is evidence of aiding and abetting volume. Two is a reprehensible statement about the conduct of the president United States. And I've said this before volume two is like the movie script for God. Four. Godfather for yet to be produced in your view. Yes, says the film. Yeah. Caddied you have what's what what's the best version of a godfather movie? Do. I think we just have to throw him breaks it at some point. Right. We have our own our own dramas going on back. I think the critical thing now is where this goes with Democrats where this goes with comas how they managed the process of subpoenaing the White House, and whether the White House is is in some way persuaded to cooperate, and we and the American public gets to him more of what was behind this investigation. And of course, the big issue, which is what race speaks about the Russian meddling is still going on. And that's the overriding concern. Right. And whether over time the DOJ is a place that looks more like rod, Rosenstein, two point. Oh, I mean one point zero was as Matt mentioned writing a false memo to try to defend the president's firing which he later admitted was false. Rod two point zero was appointing Mueller. Then rod three point zero was saying we're not going to be extorted. We're up to four or five point. Oh, but unlike apple products, rod Rosenstein, later, Asians, according to the Washington Post get worse, not better. And so the question is what is bar look like in DOJ with the president who may thinks he's getting away with these things. I think that is what what each of your comments go to on the bigger sensitive, Matt caddy and Jean. Thanks so much on the beat on this Friday evening. And thank you pre. She ate it. Now. Let me tell you what we have coming up because there's a lot more in this show. Number one. We speak live to a member of the judiciary committee on this blockbuster story landing the plane as well. As what happens if Donald Trump's aides continue to defy congress and. Then something I am so excited for I hope you stay with me from volume one and two to thirty six chambers Tang clan. Six members on the B tonight. We're up on the roof with a lot to talk about. Hi, it's Katy Tur want to keep up with MSNBC while you're on the go subscribe to the MSN BC daily newsletter. You'll get the best of what you've missed or in this unprecedented. Era of news, text MSNBC, two six six eight six six to subscribe. Welcome back to the be with our Email, but we have been covering a story that broken the Washington Post late this afternoon reports that rod Rosenstein while he was overseeing the molar probe was privately secretly back-channelling to Trump assuring him. He was not a target of the probe and leaving Donald Trump at the impression that Rosenstein was quote on Trump's team what will congress do about this kind of information while I'm joined right now by a member of the House Judiciary committee, congressman David cellini. Thanks for joining me, your reaction to this news. I pleasure. Well, this is obviously very explosive reporting rod Rosenstein now a lot of us wondered why he didn't recuse himself initially because he was a witness really in the gym Komi firing. We thought it was that he wasn't fired after that reporting was revealed that he talked about the twenty fifth amendment. Now. I think we have a better understanding here's someone who was trying to please the president trying to reassure the subject or at least. If not the target the subject of an ongoing investigation completely inappropriate. I think it's an example again of the power of the president to really corrupt. These department of Justice officials who take an oath to the constitution. They don't take an oath to the president. We saw what happened to Jeff Sessions when he refused to cave to that. I think Matt Miller, right? I think rod Rosenstein turns out to have been a weak person. He wasn't able to stand up to the present to maintain the independence of the department. If this reporting is true, and that's very disappointing. It raises lots of questions about the decisions he made I to stand with the attorney general at a press conference where where he observed him misrepresenting facts to the American people about the report he added his name to the letter that four page summary, which misled the American people about the special counsels conclusions. So raises a lot of questions about what was shared with the president. What promises were made to the president? What did he say to convince the president? He was on the president's team. I wish instead. He said, look, I'm on the team of the people of this country and the constitution, Mr President. I cannot discuss an ongoing investigation with you. But he didn't do that. You have to wonder why was he so desperate to keep his job rather than to stand up to the president and maintain the independence of his position? And the department of Justice. I think we could actually put up on the screen for demonstration what you mentioned because that press conference with Mr. bar and Rosenstein was just eight days ago. It may feel to some Americans like ancient history by now. But as you say, the report is still being processed by your committees and others the press conference there between bar and Rosenstein was a presentation the American public, and we're looking here on our screens at Rosenstein during the presser there was a lot of commentary about this being is sort of final chapter some alleging that he looked pained or like almost a quote unquote hostage. He spoke about this last night, actually, addressed it. And his said was he supposed to do his job was just to stand? There. Do you think that ultimately it is important to your congressional inquiries in the house to get to the bottom of how Muller was overseen? And whether there was under pressure on him based on what we're learning or do, you view this as? Asa Larry or in the rear view of your probes. This is an ass at all this goes to the central question of whether or not the department of Justice supervision by rod Rosenstein, in particular, in any way shape. This investigation shape, the conclusions that Mr. Muller, drew or shape the collection of any evidence. So I think as a result of this reporting, we have more questions not less, and it gets back to the central issue. Congress has a responsibility to follow the facts wherever they lead us to get the full report from Mr. Mullah to hear from all of the witnesses who contributed to evidence contained in that report. So we can make an informed judgment about next steps. The president has indicated his intention to block or try to impede congressional oversight. We're going to have to litigate some of this. But the committee is determined to get to the facts, no one in this country is above the law, including the president. And we're gonna do whatever is necessary to get information and testimony under oath from witnesses. So we can make these determinations fully. Formed. As you mentioned earlier. There was this account of this being desperation that Rosenstein was trying to clean up what had been reported out in the New York Times about as you mentioned the prospect of the twenty fifth amendment and the prospect of wearing a wire, which he did not do. There's no report that he did that. But he's not turns out from our reporting. And I think you probably know, sir. He's actually not the only long-serving law enforcement official who thought that Donald Trump's attempts to, cultivate, him. We're so inappropriate that he considered either defying Trump and not even talking to him that's one way or when calling back when getting in touch wiretapping or taping or recording him in some way, pre Perahera who was ultimately dismissed confirmed that to me in his own separate case, take a look. We actually considered and it sounds not as crazy as it did back then because now we know about Michael Cohen, according the president and Tom roszak recording the president we consider and we have this competing. Taping the president and the phone call you considered recording the president when if you had called him back. Yeah. What does it tell you that so many seasoned, and I should say nonpartisan officials were considering those measures. Well, it says what the report reveals that the president was directing people to do things that they knew were either on ethical improper or maybe illegal. Thank he was a fortunate that most of the time, they didn't do it. And that's how he was saved. But the idea that they felt the need to record him says something about what they believed about the president's instructions that they weren't appropriate. But you know, what we need is people to stand up in those moments and defend the rule of law defend the constitution defend the independence of the department of Justice. And I think what rod Rosenstein did. If it's true that reporting is incredibly disappointing. And Dave Delaney. Do you view as a final question? Yes. Or no, the the how the likelihood that the house will have impeachment hearings is yes, it's likely or no it's unlikely we're going to have hearings immediately. That will help us answer the question about whether or not we should proceed with and she impeachment at the evidence supports it. But we're going to have a series of hearings. We're going to bring in the witnesses who provided testimony to the special counsel. Interestingly already, they're not twelve angry Democrats at turns out most of the evidence contained in that special counsel report comes from the president's own administration officials or former officials so I think it's important. We hear the context of their testimony under oath. So we can make an informed judgment. Well, sir, not to make light of it. But you read the footnotes of the Miller report, and it's like a cross between a maga- rally and CPAC panel. Yeah. I mean, it's if it weren't so serious, and then if the consequences of orange so grave, and if it weren't such attack on the rule of law and on our constitution. It would be funny. But it's not and we're going to approach it in a very serious way. But we have a lot of evidence collection to do we need to see the full report, we need to see all the supporting materials, and we need to hear from these witnesses under oath before the committee. So the American people can also understand exactly what has happened. Understood the way you approaching it. And also the point you make which goes to what is damning evidence. Damning evidence is not criticism. It's not third hand accounts. It's what seemed to gather there. What Trump seems a freight of which is people who are in the room with him and who were largely politically loyal to him. Although apparently, some of them, according to Miller told the truth about what was going down congressman, thanks so much for joining us tonight. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. Definitely appreciate that. We have a lot more in this show, including the great, Jennifer Rubin from the Washington Post explaining her column that's making waves and why she says there are still important methods to hold the Trump administration accountable. And then I keep mentioning it because I'm very excited about it. A group that is sold forty million albums worldwide twenty five years in the game Wutang clan on the roof of thirty rock in New York with me when we come back later this hour. If President Trump got the clean book ehealth he claims that he got in the mullahs report. It's hard to understand why he's saying things like this today at a speech to the NRA. With all of the resignations of bad apples there bad apples. They tried for a coup didn't work out. So well. I didn't need a gun for that. One. Trying for an overthrow. And we caught em we caught em. Trump. Also, slamming his own lawyer, Don Mcgann, Democrats are demanding far more details. The report on the record. Trump denies one of Miller's biggest revelations which is corroborated that Donald Trump. According to his own aides and evidence at the time asked his counsel, Don Mcgann to oust Bob Muller. I never told on again to fire Mueller. If I wanted to fire Mueller, I would've done it myself. It's very simple. We had eighteen people that were trumpeters that is lewd, Mr. Muller. He was at Trump baiter. Muller did not actually say that what he reported was that Mcgann said it under oath. Now, these attacks are part of the wider strategy to Trump associates telling the New York Times Donald Trump thinks the only way to protect themselves from impeachment is to attack and undermine not only about Muller, but his own White House counsel. Don Mcgann, I'm thrilled to bring back to the program. Jennifer Rubin who is a conservative columnist for the Washington Post who studied many of these issues, and she's writing Trump is quote cynically defying the law by refusing to work with congress to get to the truth, which he claims exonerates him. Let's start there. Jennifer, explain well, you know, it was only what year ago. No it was last week that Donald Trump was saying he's been exonerated completely exonerated. And now, of course, he's claiming there's a coat we went from him saying that Muller was doing a great job down a fine job on and that he accepted the report to this. And the problem with this. This is that the context of that second volume of the mole report makes out a very clear case in my view of obstruction. And unlike the bar slash Rosenstein, spin Muller didn't say he was refraining for making that call because there was insufficient evidence. He very clearly said he works refraining from making that call because it was Congress's job to do. And this is why the president now is freaking out. This is why he's trying to prevent again from testifying. This is why in another context he's having his Chris Wray secretary defy Congress's right to get his tax returns, and they are stonewalling stonewalling stonewalling on you've studied the the Watergate hearings, and you know, that that was one of the basis for which Richard Nixon was going to be impeached before he resigned, his noncooperation with congress. Now, a president has a right like any other citizen on to raise a legitimate legal defenses and objections. For what Trump is doing. There is no legitimate argument debt. Don, Mcgann spent over thirty hours with the special counsel, Mr. Mueller, so whatever executive privilege they had was waived more than thirty hours ago. Likewise, the president keeps talking about the conversation that again, waive the privilege so there is no basis by which he can legitimately keep them again from testifying, and frankly, I don't think again should listen to him. He didn't work for many more. He can go into congress and testified or whatever he likes and he should because otherwise he's in trouble. And this is one of the difficulties. I think we're running into is that Trump still gets people to do his bidding. He's still getting witnesses to not cooperate to not go forward to not tell the truth. He is still getting his Treasury Secretary not to turn over tax returns. When the statute plainly says you shall provide it to the chairman of the ways in me. Means committee. So I think congress is going to have to put on their collective thinking caps and figure out how to break on this, really. There's no other word for it. But obstructionist behavior on in order to meserve the legitimacy of congress is Coequal branch the legitimacy of its investigative powers and the legitimacy frankly of the DO trae itself. So I think we are now in uncharted territory. We'll see if congress is able to get a contemporary eating if congress is able to get persuade these people to cooperate. We're are now God really coming to. I think a position of a real face off between the executive and later slip branches. Well, you laid out there. So well as you did in your piece, which is what made us think of you. And as you say with chairman Adler saying, they will take the contempt power seriously and potentially jail aides who defy these requests, the some of those big battles are ahead. And they're not just about Muller. Jennifer rubin. Thanks for joining me on a Friday night. My pleasure. Always good to see you up ahead. If it's the beat. It's the Wu Tang clan. Thirty six chambers up on the roof talking about their new project of Mike of men. The future of hip hop and some politics on the roof up ahead. Time now for a special takeover edition of fallback. Let me now are six members of the legendary root Tang clan. You got inspector deck Capitana mass to kill. It goes face killer and Rizza you've heard of them because they've sold over forty million albums worldwide. And recently had a district named after them in the hometown of satin island. Their new projects is documentary of Mike and men come into Showtime, and it looks at their old stomping grounds around the city. Good. What Crump's was not on joins the black red yellow Brown, white all rock and with us. These families become our wing. They're also back onto a right now, celebrating the twenty fifth anniversary of their debut album at one of my favorite albums of all time in any John and to the Wu Tang thirty six chambers. Which of course, went platinum. Now, why are they called Tang clan? Let me show you the the name of the group where did that come from? Well, like, we'll tell them. So that was a sports style of Rahman and clamming his family. Let me say I am so excited to welcome you here. Thank you for being here. We'll take clan. Fung ari. We're gonna get to some of your fullback Rizza Gladys Knight. Let's talk about the good old days. It's good old. She said it you said it what does this project being to you? And your colleagues saying good a chance to look back when I'll pass and see what we all today. There's documentaries very stylistic. Be -flective think so great tribute paying a lot of people don't get a chance to be talked about a document until after the da, you know, we're live in and we get a chance to see it in children's get the loan about the struggles we went through and the music that we created that bought us out of that struggle when you look around right now what or who needs to fall back. They lead to fall back on his is is is the food. This this food is messed up all his GM old stuff GM Moody's. I mean, like like, you know, they making it is like is everything is cloned nowadays. So looks like I'll be knowing what the eat like I'm looking at the watermelons. With rain, no seeds. It was like this big. I never seen bananas like get out. I would like to fall back this damn gun. Valid stuff that this stuff is out of control. You know, senseless people get well, we know black men in in hood, we get shot at record numbers right now. So if I want to say something about that. That's that's got something to the ATF one fullback on that pharmaceutical markets they show. I. Oh. Don't specialize in Helton hill than people only keeping you sedated and and drugged up which leads to your demise in the end. Anyway, I think I personally you say there's a there's a new wall going limiting in the hip, hop culture. It's like a young head overhead type of thing. I think I think I think the youngest you fall back with that old head business. You know, say because one day you're going to be right here, bro. If you're become an old head you make you feel oh head, you know, as we've gotta we gotta coined that term and make more gotta mean more. Now, you know like all head is a is a objective to make it to now. You know, do you think some of the what you call young heads the young artist? You think they're coming into success too quick. And they don't necessarily have all of the leg work at time to reflect that maybe you had coming up. Sort of. Yes. No, no the role they took to get there. Yeah. But I think right now when he coming in senior seventeen they coming into it sound with the money was already created so easy platform. Like he said before we was in. We was fifteen passenger van Slavi these other like rested. You know, what I mean doing the legwork going radio dune is doing the colleges, and you don't mean go like really really on there. It was like you could just say whatever, I think that Islamaphobia better fall back on that, man. You know, what I mean people, you know, if depend attention the world Islam means peace how you gonna have a phobia against peace. You know what I mean? You know what I mean? If you go back, and you look at the synagogue, this was the people come to pray and worship. How are you going to tack and shoot up a place like that where the people are most vulnerable now me if you look at these coaches both down Sri Lanka. You're not me. Is like this is a place at NAMI had hit. You know what I mean? And people many people came to that today from all forms of life and hit. Now, this is a place of worship. I don't care if you build yourself, you know, a straw hut for worship. That's what sport ain't for somebody to come. You know, I mean, and then destroyed and the the people inside so you need to fall back on that. Wiza-? Let's take a look at something. You said on election day twenty sixteen. I'm not gonna you know, hire a painter, cook my dinner. I'm going to hire a chef you're and even though, you know, so to me Hillary is chef for country rather we've had about two years of the Donald Trump presidency. Were you right? What do you think the America is a country? That's about. Freedom Justice equality for the people is it was a country that wants us to grow to be the best that we can solve in t of every individual every heavy men to have the thing we played we pledge allegiance to the flag is going to public with it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and Justice for if this is kind of country right there. Hillary Clinton would have been president force at that time doing that election. But if America is a corporation in America's that's the big company. The Donald Trump is a good guy to run it, exactly. Because he's a businessman exactly since I'm in the news. I'll push you on that. Do we want our society to be run like a four profit corporation or more like something that includes everybody I think for the foot? I think for the long term is better to run for something. That includes everybody because the soul was just go back to when the food is inevitably modified, okay? There's no chance. Oh, randomness. There's no chance for there's no chance for that for that Wildflower to grow. Something new that becomes even more prosperous, right? Is now cookie cut right? It's now every day is so controlled right there. So controlled that the option of random isn't doesn't happen. And if you don't have a random. Right. The y chromosome itself is a random weather. Think about that for a minute go to science on. They know the y chromosome is point being made. Is that is that we, you know, you know, if looking real country for the people that I took a pledge, and I was a kid. You took it took. It took president trying to take it is it was all part of our school. And it said that this one nation under God indivisible. So that were indivisible. Meaning we can't be divided. I can't call it. You white American. You can't call me black American you call them Asian-American Latin about this American baby is indivisible, and you divide it. But if you dealing with a company Inc. Yeah, we got the parliament's. We got everything that divide everybody incentive out, and that's the hustle. That's the hustle. I don't care who was the president. Moc community has not changed much less. Right. Chicago has not changed and all communities. No matter who's the President Bill is still violence is still drugs is still poverty, and it's still the same promise as going to be something different. And it has not changed xactly. So that's so for us. We gotta do what we gotta do on. All you know, what I mean? You know what? I mean. These were excellent fall Bax, and I'm not just saying that as a fan I wanna give a special thanks to Tang clan. The new project on Showtime. Thank you so much for coming on the beach. Get. Oakland. We're not done when we come back, the volt Lindsey Graham owning himself when it comes to stonewalling congressional oversight. And that is back in just thirty seconds. Tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you the day. Richard Nixon failed answer that subpoena is the day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from congress. The power from congress. You were looking at a member of congress Lindsey Graham, but it was nine thousand nine hundred ninety eight I should say talking about president who defies subpoenas from congress. Obviously a hot topic right now as Donald Trump has taken the unusual position that they won't comply with basically all kinds of oversight from House Democrats. We're going to be seeing a lot more of what people said about this when the parties, and the jerseys were reversed given how much talk there is about consistency in Washington. We'll be right back. We one more thing. Thanks for joining me on a show. We were especially excited about I'm all remember signing off new for meet the press the Chuck Todd cast, it's an insider's take on politics, the twenty twenty election in more candid conversations with some of my favorite reporters about things we usually discuss off camera. Listen for free wherever you get your podcast.

President Trump president Mr. Rosenstein rod Rosenstein Washington Post Matt Miller Robert Muller Congress Mr President DOJ Donald Trump Matt New York Times Rosenstein deputy attorney general department of Justice Jim Komi Bob mueller White House attorney
Sally Yates: Decisions

The Oath with Chuck Rosenberg

1:13:04 hr | 2 years ago

Sally Yates: Decisions

"I do solemnly swear that I will support defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic that I will bear to faith and allegiance to the that I take this obligation freely any mental reservation or purpose of Asia, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which aabout to enter so help me so me God. Welcome to the oath. I'm Chuck Rosenberg. And I am honored to be your host for a series of compelling conversations with fascinating people from the world of public service. My guest today is Sally Yates in part, because so many of you have written to me and asked to hear from her Sally spent almost three decades in the United States Department of Justice working her way up from line federal prosecutor all the way to the number two ranking position in the Justice department. The deputy attorney general in January of twenty seventeen Sally Yates served as the acting attorney general of the United States, she was fired from that job by President Trump for insubordination when she refused to have the department of Justice enforce a travel ban issued by the president, which restricted travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Sally will explain why she took the stand that she did. And why in her view, there was no other principled course. So you welcome to the oath. Thanks for having me check. I'm glad to be here. It's a pleasure to spend some time with you. You were born in Atlanta, Georgia to a family of lawyers and ministers. And I think you said you had two options one or the other. Yeah. It was not a terribly original career choice that I made where my father and both of my grandfathers uncles cousins, and most importantly, my paternal, grandmother, you called her mama. I we did. Yeah. Actual name. I was to buy, which is some people pronounce it Tabah but it's Biblically pronounced to buy them until us about her. She was a remarkable woman. She actually became a lawyer back in the day where you didn't have to go to law school. You could do what they called reading law, essentially a printing under another lawyer in study, and then take the bar exam. And if you passed you were a lawyer, just like anybody else, and she did that, but this was rural. Georgia, you know, back in the thirties and they're not hiring. A lot of lady lawyers back at that time, not any. No, no. And so she ended up being the legal secretary to my grandfather and then later to my father and uncle. But she was actually smarter than all of them, put together so often thought it had to be incredibly frustrating for her to be typing somebody else's thoughts, although I suspect, she edited pretty heavily as she was typing good sprinkling of her thoughts and their phones. I think I read a story, Sally were her husband, your grandfather was reading the newspaper and actually saw her name listed a sewn who just was admitted to the practice of law, but didn't think it was her. Well, that's the family lore. It seems impossible to me. But at least that's the story that's been passed down is that they were literally at the kitchen table, reading the paper together, and he looked at. Look at this. There's another Tobia the Quilliam that passed the bar. First of all, what are the chances? There's another Tobia the Quilliam period. And she, you know, as the story goes said, that's not somebody else, that's me, whether true or not it's a great story. It is. That's so you're from a family of lawyers. Wanted you figure out that new to wanted to be a lawyer. I it wasn't early on. In fact, I think sort of my way of rebelling when I was in college and coming out of college was not being lawyer sort of had this thought that I didn't want to be a lawyer didn't want to be married to a lawyer, and I didn't particularly want a lot of lawyer friends. Now, amyloid a Mary tool. Lawyer and have lots of lawyer friends, it was after I been out for a couple of years out of college, and I was working on the hill. And the congressman for whom I was working retired and I was trying to decide what to do next and just felt this gravitational pull to go to law school. And you went to law school at the simplist where you went to college. I did. I did. On university, Georgia bulldog. I am. When you graduated from law school in nineteen eighty six it was in some ways of wonderful year for you, in some ways an awful year for you D mind talking about that now. No on as you mentioned, graduated in nineteen eighty six and my father, who had been a lawyer and also on the Georgia court of appeals had struggled with depression, really for years. And there were ups and downs in the course of his illness who said something, you knew or saw. Oh, yeah. I mean, we were incredibly close family. There were no subjects really off the table with us, we shared everything. So we were very well aware of his struggles with depression. It said before that it's like when things would be better. We would be so incredibly hopeful. But inevitably the darkness would come again. And try to remember this is the mid eighties. And we really were encouraging him. Him to get professional help for this, but he was so worried about the stigma associated with mental illness, and particularly because he had something of a public profile and was worried about people finding out. And I think he viewed it as a weakness really rather than an illness that concern about the stigma he did he did. And he didn't sort of go through it. Exactly the same way I did. He was just saying, no don't want people to know about this, and that was the one time actually when he would not be quite as forthcoming. And he had struggled and struggled and had been for a couple of months before I was to graduate in particularly dark time. And I'll never forget, we, we spoke every single day by phone every day and a missed a call from him on the afternoon of may six and he took his life early that evening. And, you know, I'm not suggesting that it's it's because he didn't talk. To me, although I'll always be haunted by that just breaks my heart that someone who lived with a vitality, that I think very few of us ever embrace, who was always looking for how he could help other people folksy new. Well and people he barely knew. And yet, we seem to power 'less to be able to help him, and the irony, of course, is out. There were so many people who would have done anything to help your father. Oh, absolutely. You know, and he was one of those people we knew of, of how he was struggling. But he was one of those folks who was able to, you know, he's still functioning the people on the outside would not really have known that he was tormented on the inside that didn't talk about this for a very long time, because you couldn't or you just didn't want to or a combination. You know, I guess a combination of that one thing it's I mean, it's still it's thirty years ago and it's. Still, incredibly painful to discuss. And so certainly that was part of it, but also I think a sort of felt a need to protect his privacy as well. I think when someone commits suicide oftentimes they end up being defined by that last final act. And I so much didn't want for my dad for him to be defined by how he died, but rather a how we lived, but I've realised now how important it is that we talk about this the only way that we're going to do anything about the stigma associated with mental illness is if people like my dad feel free to be able to seek the help that they need and that doesn't mean that just folks who are suffering from the illness need to talk about it all the rest of us do, too, which is why I was so grateful that you were willing to talk about it today is thought about this. If this inspires one person just one person ever and all the time. I talk about it too. To get the help that they need or one family member. It's absolutely worth it. Well, if this helps who's going to be a lot of people listening salad, because the one recurring theme in the Email that we get it this show. Please have Sally Yates on. Oh, well on feeling the pressure. I hope I won't disappoint now. But you won't but to that point, whether it's depression or addiction, if people need help have to seek it, right? And support them in doing so we in society, even if that's not something that we're personally struggling with we need to be talking about it and not stigmatizing at either. I've said before if somebody had kidney disease or had broken their arm. They wouldn't be reluctant to seek help we wouldn't think that they should just tough it out and be able to cure themselves. And likewise, we shouldn't expect that of people who suffer from addiction or mental health issues. Thank you for talking about your father. And I think you're right. We should never define his life or anyone else's by the last act, but rather by everything. Came before that. Right. So you became a lawyer. Yeah. Despite all of my intentions, and I'm so glad that I did. I think I'm pretty much one trick pony very one dimensional. I'm a lawyer. And once I started law school, I mean I knew from the very first week that this was the right place for me. It made sense to me had left law school, which probably will make you think I'm crazy, not so much because I really liked it too from that first week of law school, a new despite my resistance to becoming a lawyer, I felt like this is the right path, and it has been some point, of course, prosecutors are lawyers, but you decided you wanted to be a prosecutor and I'm gonna get to that. But I, I wanted to ask you about the first two or three years out of law school. I know you went to big law, firm, king, and Spalding law firm that you practice lot now bowl circle return thirty years later full circle Griffin. L was running the firm at the time who's Griffin bell. He was the attorney general and the Carter administration. And he came back to king installing he practiced there before becoming AG and came back and started the special matters practice there at the firm, which is white collar defense investigations, that kind of special problems that some of our clients have and a he is actually, the one who encouraged me to go to the US attorney's office, I hadn't even really considered being a prosecutor when I was in school didn't take many criminal law classes, when when I was there, and he suggested that I go to the US turns office for a few years, and then come back to the firm, what did he want you to do that? Well, I had recently actually tried a pro Bono case that he had assigned to me, and he saw how gratifying, I found that case. And he thought that I would enjoy the work at the Justice department from a, you know, funding the work gratifying and meaningful. But also thought. That I would have an opportunity to trauma cases. And in both of those things were true, but I was totally unprepared for how completely committed would become to the privileges corneas. It sounds the privilege of representing the people of the United States, doesn't sound corny to me. And we'll talk more about that. But when he asked you to or suggest it to you that you go for a couple years, and then come back, he probably didn't know it would be twenty seven years. But I also don't think he was altogether surprised, you know, I saw him and talk to him over the years while I was at the US attorney's office. And I think he appreciated the fact that I had become committed to that mission. Probably was not surprised you fell in love with the work. No, I did. Once you've had the privilege of getting to do the right thing for a living. It's pretty hard to consider doing anything out. You mentioned just in passing a pro Bono matter. That you worked on when you were young lawyer. But I don't wanna let that slip away because you've also described that as one of the most impactful cases in your life. I was hoping you would tell us about it. And this was a case where a woman had been represented through the Saturday lawyer program. It kings balding pro Bono program, you know, years before I was given this case, and when she had another problem Arashi she came back to the firm and judge bell knew that my family my father and grandfather had been from bear accounting, Georgia, which is an hour or so outside of Atlanta rural county rural county in Georgia. So we called me up to his office, and he told me about miss Morison's plight and her family were the first African American landowners, embarrassed, Georgia. They had obtained ninety two acres of property and bear candy back in the thirties. The problem was they were very mistrustful of the white court system understand d'or stand ably. So and because this property. Was so important to them. They weren't going to go file their deed with this core system. Instead, our client carried the D that was written on a piece of cloth. Not on, you know, the vanc- legal paper written on a piece of Claude, she carried it folded up into four down inside her dress every day as she was working the field. They were going to hold onto that deed. But because they didn't file the deed, there was an adjoining landowner who had filed a survey with his property that essentially co opted, like six point two acres property. This is many years later, many years later, many years later, but because their deed was not timely filed this other landowner was was laying claim to six acres of their property and property wasn't worth a whole lot of money. It was actually that six acres was pretty swampy in and of itself, there that in matter. I mean this was their property. This mitt the world. World to them. And they wanted that property back her full name was Levy Morrison lovey Morrison and so already pro Bono client of the firm, somebody that the firm was helping for free as many firms do what did she need now she needed to get the property back? But the problem was this property, as well as joining properties have been subdivided, and there was a developer who was building a residential subdivision there. So this property, had actually been sold their their six acres, and so they wanna get the property back. So we filed an action to return the property using arcane legal theory known his adverse, possession of vaguely remembered from property. Normally, you know, you learn that first year property, you never use that again, it means if you have used the property openly, an Tori Asli for seven years, even if you don't have a deed that is timely filed to that property. Then that property assures the I. Idea is that you've sort of laid claim for all to know that you're claiming this property years. So she both actually owned the property and had adversely possessed it, but she couldn't prove the former she couldn't prove that she actually owned it. Right. Because of this conflicting survey. So we had to prove that she had used it before the joining landowner had. And so you had approve right, right? And look, I had absolutely no idea what I was doing. No idea. I had never represented a client among own before it certainly never tried a case. And the way we were going to be able to establish the use of this property was by our clients family washing their clothes in the stream that ran through it, and cutting timber from there, and there was another adjoining landowner back at the time that chain. See family, and they were actually known as the Dixie mafia, then there, moonshine hours, moonshine IRS, and worse, involve them. At least main shiners, because they were using the stream and another place to get the water to make their main shine there. So if I'm following than the chance, family could help you a stab which that lovey Morrison had used that part of her land that it was actually hers. Right. And Ruth chain see who was still alive had witnessed this, but she didn't particularly want to testify last time she had been inside a courtroom. Her husband had been convicted of killing a man and dropping him down a well. And so things had not gone. Well, for the chances the last time they were there in a courtroom, and she didn't really have any desire to do it. But I spent afternoon after noon on mischance. He's front porch just talking with her letting her get to know me and trust me, and she finally agreed to testify, what did you do to convince MS chancy that you needed her help that lovey Morrison needed her help, you know, I'm not sure I can claim credit for that. I think that. Once a spend enough time with her, and she trusted what this was all about that. It was about getting the property back from his Morrison, and I think there's a basic Justice thing there that she knew how much this property meant to the Morrison family, she might not have raised her hand to do this, but she agreed to do it, but I'd never even seen a trial before much less try to case, I remember the week before the trial. I had to go over and see another case being tried, so I would have some idea of what happens in jury selection, like what you're supposed to do during that which side of the courtroom, where to stand or what you were supposed to say or any of this. And the firm, Charlie curb. Oh, who was just one of the great all-time Americans had been president Carter's known as one main kitchen cabinet. He was his closest adviser he had tried a thousand cases and he agreed to come over and try the case with me, or, or basically. I think the firm wanted him to sit there and make sure. Didn't commit malpractice. But Mr. Kirby was the best. He walked the fields with me came there. It was a little challenging, because Mr. curb was very hard of hearing and he had sent his hearing aids in the mail to be adjusted and they had been lost. And so, when we were trying the case, he couldn't hear what was going on in the courtroom, and he would come up and sort of pull on that the, the sleeve of my jacket and say, have you asked her about? So it's in this stage whisper that the whole courtroom could here, which only endeared Mr. Kirby to everybody there before we get to what happened set the scene in the courtroom and in the county loving Morrison, his African American. I believe your jury is entirely white judges white the land developer the other party and their lawyers are all white. Talk about that our client and her daughter were the only two African Americans in the courtroom and this was. Before Batson had been extended to civil cases, late nineteen eighties nineteen ninety nine unexplained because that's a really important supreme court case bats an established that you cannot use race to exclude jurors from trial, when bats was I decided it applied in a criminal case context, and there was some period of time, some years before. It also applied in civil, and so the lawyers on the other side had eliminated all of the African Americans from the jury, and in fact, I remember that my client was very upset with me, because she didn't understand it. I that we weren't picking jurors to put on a jury you weren't saying, I want that person or that person that the lawyers can only eliminate Jour's so the other side eliminated all the African Americans from the jury. So my poor client, had this lawyer who had no idea what she was doing. That's me using a fairy of adverse possession to try to establish. Claim to property based on acts that occurred decades ago. And one of your star witnesses is the wife of a murderer. Right. There's that not ideal the jurors many of whom again, this is a rural area. They knew all the people on the other side. It wasn't just the any African Americans. Many of them new, the lawyer, they knew the surveyor, they knew the developer. It's a small town people know each other there, and they didn't know my client and they didn't know you know they didn't even know my father and grandfather had been from there. I had been raised in Atlanta. And so they didn't know me either you describe before the jury returned with its verdict being rather nervous. Yeah. Oh, I was because, you know, I, I wanted so much for this to turn out right for MS Morrison, you know, she, too, I think it'd been a little skeptical of me. At first, she didn't really understand why I was spending all this time. On a case when we weren't getting paid anything for this. But over the time she came to trust me. In fact, she sent jelly to me every year at Christmas for years following this case. So I was incredibly nervous and what's up like when a jury comes back with a verdict. Oh, gosh. The time if feels like an eternity while they're out and that was the case, not just during my first trial every trial of ever had, it feels like an eternity. At least I can't think about anything else. I know other people who sometimes work on other matters. I'm no good. I'm like you for me. It was a moment of such high-drama that I couldn't focus on anything else until the case was resolved. Yeah. You know you're there in the courtroom. And then when you hear they have a verdict your stomach, or at least mine, does just completely turns over in that moment. And when the jury files in, you know, I've never known look at them. Do you not look at them if you look at him and they make eye contact us? That means I'm no good at reading those. He leaves what happened here here. It was absolutely remarkable. They came in and they returned a verdict for miss Morrison giving her her property back, and it's not because I did some bang-up job there. I did not. I was muddling my way through this, and I got to talk to some of the jurors afterwards in a lot of times. People think are really cynical about our Justice system, and there are certainly problems in our Justice system. But those jurors vaguely really took their responsibility very seriously, and they pieced through the evidence and, despite the fact, they knew all the people on the other side, they felt really good about doing the right thing here. And there was a full circle aspect of this, when you think about that, same courthouse, where our clients have been so mistrustful of the system that they didn't even wanna filed their Dave. They're in that same court house, they got Justice and they got their property back. And I think they had a new confidence in the Justice system that they didn't have before that as well on credible story. Oh, gosh. You know, I've said before I've been lucky to be involved in some really interesting matter some high profile matters kinds of things. But when you think about the gift, we have is lawyers to be able to impact real people's lives. It doesn't always have to be in a big president making headline grabbing kind of way this had a real impact on miss Morrison's life. I'm just guessing that the is she sent you every year after that was pretty good. Oh, it was fantastic. Yeah. They were just, you know, we had a relationship after that. And I learned a tremendous amount both about the responsibility of a lawyer, but just about human nature's while favorite flavor. Yeah, the raspberry. Strawberry's really good too. But it was not too long after that, you went and became an assistant US attorney in the northern district of Georgia in Atlanta. Yeah. Yeah. Did you like that loved that again? I thought I would like it and I actually remember a friend of mine who had been in a USA, and I told him plan was, I was going to go for a couple of years, and then come back to the firm, and he kinda smugly send your little, we'll see just how long you stick with that plan after you go to the US attorney's office, and I remember he was the one that are related I to me, sort of, once you have that privilege of standing up in a courtroom in saying you represent the people of the United States. I mean that is an awesome responsibility. We've talked about that very phrase on this show before saying your name on behalf of the United States, sounds corny, but it sends a chill down your spine. You think about it. What that means is that the people. Of our country are entrusting you to seek Justice on their behalf. When you became an assistant US attorneys at the first time you took the oath, it is number. I did. Yeah. Tell me about a, please. Well, I remember this was actually before a lot of people from big firms, actually made the transition to the US tourneys office. So there was not a big fancy ceremony. But I remember there was a ceremony and other USA's from the office came, and they're sort of circled around as the oath is administered. And you know, I'm thinking about when I went to private practice. There's not an oath there. There's an certainly there's an oath that you take when you're admitted to the bar short, but that's to represent your clients. This was to represent the people of the United States in a made a point after became US attorney of making a real ceremony out of this where not only people from the office came, but family members and. Parents and others. So that one thing their families could have a full appreciation of what it is that their loved one is doing and how important this responsibility is. And it's also good for the senior people in the office who've been around for a long time to be reminded, again as well of chest. How fortunate we all were to have the opportunity to take that oath, and the responsibility to try to live up to it every day. How long were you align prosecutor a USA I became a supervisor after a few years, but I was still trying cases during that time even during the time I was first assistant there, which is the top assistant before you attorney so twenty years. And I know you've had some fascinating cases, but I wanted to ask you about one in particular, Eric, Rudolph was responsible for the Centennial Park bombing of the nineteen ninety six Atlanta summer Olympics and that was your case. There were a number of people over the years. From nineteen ninety six but I started on the case not too long after a few months after the bombing there. And then remained on it all the way through with the search for Eric Rudolph in the woods of North Carolina that went on for years after that. So let's set the scene overall he was responsible for four bombings. Right. Rian Georgia, and one in Alabama. That's right. And I know at the very first bombing two people died one directly from the bomb a woman named Alice Hawthorne, right? And then a cameraman who actually running to cover what had happened. He died of a heart attack. Miss Hawthorne, was there actually to celebrate her daughter, Fallon's thirteenth birthday, just tragic. There's a photograph of miss Hawthorne, there that Fallon was taking literally just seconds before the bomb went off. In addition to the two people who died at Centennial Park, more than one hundred were injured. Right. How do you approach a case like that? You have to remember again. Gosh, I'm sounding like such an old person. Now when I'm going back, this is where the same. But the audience may, there may be some younger people in the audience. This was the nineties. And so we didn't have, you know, the benefit of cell phones, and other things now where people, you know, have all their photographs digitize, you know, we're actually trying to track down every person just about in Centennial Park that was anywhere near where this tower wasn't. So it was an incredible amount of work that the inner sound tower. It was it was near the NBC sound tower that was there and the FBI did an amazing job. I mean, there were hundreds literally hundreds of agents working on this human, imagine if there is a bomb at the Olympics in particular fatal bombing. That's something that impacts, not just Atlanta or the United States, but the entire world. And so it was a massive massive undertaking, with the investigation, and then there were subsequent bombings, that, if the time folks didn't know whether it was the same person or not. But we were. Able to forensically link to the Centennial Park bombing. And we knew that we had a serial bomber on our hands and wanted to figure out that, that serial bomber was Eric Rudolph, that was not until after the bombing in Birmingham, when there was actually an eyewitness to Eric Rudolph walking away from the bomb site there, which was a women's health clinic, and as I recall at the bombing an off-duty police officer was killed and a nurse was grievously injured absent just, just maimed. And there was a witness who, who saw him walking away and was just Geraldo IQ in following him and getting his license, tag number, because even just seeing somebody being able to describe them probably wouldn't do it. The key was getting that license plate number, and who is recruit off a domestic terrorist. He was a white supremacist. He hated law enforcement hated Jewish people. He had some feeling. About abortion. But frankly, when you go back to his family and friends that was not anything he ever really talked about. He was one of those people who really was driven more by his antisemitic, and racist views than anything else and just despise loan. He flees. Does he learn that you're after him or does he just take off on his own? He learned through a radio report that the feds are looking for him that we were able to trace a receiver. He had been through a drive through, and we're able to link it up with a radio report. And that's when he went off to his hideout that he had that was something that he had had made an advance in case, the feds ever came looking for deep in the woods of north North Carolina. Right. And it took seven years to find him. Yes, remarkable, and you're still in USA all this time still in USA. Yes. And are they actively look? Looking for how does that unfold? Yeah. The they certainly were actively looking for him for some period of time. There was a time actually when he had broken into a cabin and we were able to identify that was him. So that would show that he was still alive in the latter years though. There were not as many signs that he was still out there. So people had conflicting theories about whether he was still alive or not. But then he surpised actually and Murphy, North Carolina and local law enforcement person found him dumpster, diving there behind a Taco Bell as I recall, a rookie police off -absolutely yet. Who didn't really know who he had at the time he arrested him? But thank goodness for him. And when he brought him into the station, one of the other police officers, their recognized, and even the Rudolph know had a full beard and all and they figured out who they had on their hands there. And he is sent back to Georgia to your district to stand trial, what happens. Well he was going to stand trial both in Burr. Coming ham, and Atlanta because he's charged in Atlanta with three bombings. Are Centennial Park a bombing of a women's health clinic and a gay bar and the bombing in Birmingham as well? And so we were moving forward with both cases at that time, when there were some discussions about plea Goshi ations now to set the stage. It's death penalty. Eligible case what does that mean Sally because death resulted from his crimes? There's a process that the department goes through for the attorney general to ultimately make the final decision about whether the department of Justice will seek the death penalty or not. But both the Birmingham bombing and the Centennial Park bombing were delicate because people died, right? Ultimately, he did not get the death penalty. And there was no trial, he pled guilty and spending the rest of his life without eligibility for parole in federal prison. How did that happen? Well, we were proceeding along with both cases. The Birmingham and the Atlantic ace. And I heard from his defense lawyer about some dynamite issue, here is that three of the bombings had used dynamite and dynamites not just something that, you know, you walk into WalMart and buy it's controlled, and we had dented where we believed Rudolph had gotten this dynamite. There was a big feft and North Carolina. But there was a whole lot of it hundreds of pounds that was still missing when we had, you know, found his trailer in his truck and everything else, we had never been able to find the rest of the dynamite, and that really worried us because as a learned from the fringe folks at the FBI dynamite becomes very volatile. If it's not turned and over the years, it becomes incredibly volatile. And so we were worried about where this might be. And so if you have little dynamite out there, that's not being properly turned and cared for that somebody innocent could get hurt striving. Stake into the ground to set up a campsite. Right. And that's what we learned here. His lawyer called and said that Rudolf can tell you where this dynamite is. And in fact, it is buried in a national park. It's a very big national park. It's a park that's frequented by campers. And he'll tell you where that is, but he wants you to take death off at the table. So that was the trade off that was the trade off that was offered and even plead guilty and admit his guilt to all four bombings, but he wants you to take death off at the table. And now when we say, take death off the table. We hadn't had a death sentence imposed this was leaving it on the table as an option for the government to seek for a jury to have an option to impose the death penalty. So how do you think about that, that trade off Rudolph? Honestly, telling you where the dynamite is so you can recover it and protect the public on one hand and these heinous crimes that he committed that resulted in the death of other people innocent. People for which his death eligible on the other hand, it was a real dilemma, look wanna make it clear. I wasn't the only one making this decision. There are other people in our office and lots of people at may Justice and ultimately, the attorney general because it was such an important decision. You know, you don't want to allow someone to be able to buy their way out of a decision like that. And certainly, if you're going to have a death penalty, then these were crimes that were worthy of a jury having that consideration on the other hand what we really struggled with was the worry that as folks told us you could have group of boy scouts that are out there and are literally, as you just said driving a stake into the ground that would be enough to detonate this dynamite. And so we felt a real responsibility to protect innocent members of the public a now and for years to come. And so we struggled back and forth with what we do there. And we were worried also that this was a setup from Rudolf explain that. Well, this was, you know, sometime after but not too long after the Yuna bomber Texans ski, who had booby-trapped his cabin there in Montana and given how Rudo felt about law enforcement. There was great concern that we were being set to lure them into a place that he had booby-trapped for him to be able to kill even more members of law enforcement. And remember, Rudolph initially wanted us to, like, let him out and said he would take the law enforcement folks. There was no way in the world. Anybody like you know, was leading after Rudolph been on the run for years. Nobody's letting off out and so we alternately decided that it would be irresponsible, on our part. Not to do what we could to protect innocent members of the public from being harmed or potentially killed. And so we began these negotiations with his lawyer, where his lawyer is literally. With him there at the federal prison with topographical maps, you know, this was not it wasn't like he had GPS coordinates where he could tell us where was it was more like, will you go to the top of the hill? And there's a big rock, and then you go right about twenty paces. And you know, that's the kind of description that he had, and he would relay that to us, we would give that then to the agents they would go and try to follow those directions with a lot of back and forth and through all of that they were able to locate the dynamite. It was a huge stash. It was so volatile at this point. They didn't feel like they could even move it that, it, it could detonate with that. So they had to detonate it in place, which made just this enormous crater, but that meant people frequenting that forest wooden wouldn't have to be fearful in the future that would be. So they would be safe. Yeah. I mean, it's not the kind of thing that you learn law school, how to make a decision like that. But Chuck, I'm in, you know, for. From your time in law enforcement from your time at the department of Justice. A lot of the decisions that we make our balancing decisions where you're trying to serve the interest of the public, and you're trying to balance these in hope that you strike the right balance and making those decisions. And as I've come to learn there is often not a playbook for the hardest ones. No, there's not. And look, maybe other people would have made a different decision. I believe this was the right one Eric will serve the rest of his life in prison. That's where he should be. But again, other people will be saying. It's the right outcome. Hey, it's Chris Hayes from MSNBC every day, I come to the office, and we make television show. An everyday I think, to myself, they're so much more. I want to talk about. And so this is our podcast, it's called why is this happening and the whole idea behind it is to get to the root of the things that we see Lee out every day. They're driven by big ideas. Each week I sit down with the person uniquely suited to explain why this is happening. New episodes of wise this happening every Tuesday, listen for free wherever you get your podcasts later in that same office, you had worked your way up from line, a USA supervisor to first assistant United States attorney, the chief deputy you were the United States. Attorney you're in charge. Right honor of my life. Yes. When did you become the United States attorney in the northern district of Georgia? It was the beginning of the Abiomed ministration. And I it served as I assistant actually for two. To US attorneys, and the Bush administration prior to that. Did you like being in charge? I did like being in charge. Well, a couple of things when I grow up in the office. But I think you know as much as you think how different can it be to go from being, I assistant to being US attorney it's actually very different because it's one thing to be advising the US attorney on these tough call kind of decisions. It's a whole nother thing to actually being the one making the decision, but to me what I liked about it is that it gave me an opportunity to really be able to chart, the course of the office, there really limited resources and any US attorney's office, and you can't do everything there and you have to decide how you're gonna use those resources to make the district to safest you can do it, but also importantly, and to me, this is just as important is to do it in a way that engenders trust of the people, whom you serve and that included also being involved in prevention f. Efforts on the front end and prisoner reentry on the back end to ensure that they're successful. So I loved having a chance to be able to chart that course in an office in a department that believed in so strongly. So I had a similar experience. I had been a line USA. I've been a supervisor I became the US attorney in that same district. The thing I loved was the hiring the chance to hire young men and women for that line USA job that I had loved so much. You're absolutely right. Because those are the folks that are going to be there, a lot longer than you are, as US attorney as a political appointment. You know, you're going to go when the president goes, and you know, that going into it, but you see that, that's really the future of the office, and I can remember interviewing a USA's and to me, there's lots of smart lawyers out there. I hate to say sort of smart lawyers were damaged dozen top of their class, in that was sort of table stakes. What I was looking for was whether this. Person got the very special responsibility, that you had as an assistant United States attorney that it's not to win trials. It's not to put people in prison. It's to seek Justice and you gotta make sure that you have people in place, whose compass is pointed in the right direction there to ensure that the department continues to fulfill that mission I used to say the same thing I still doing fact that it was easy to hire smart move. We really knew the higher was a folks who are emotionally intelligent. And who also understood that you would treat a victim, or a Bank robber or a probation officer or a federal judge exactly the same way with civility with respect right now. I remember a young a USA telling me one time she had had a few sentencings. She came to me and said, Sal, I gotta leave the office. I, I can't do this, and I asked her to tell me more. She said, I can't be in USA. Because sentencings are really hard. I look at the family members that are sitting in the row behind the defendant and see how they're being impacted by this, and I'm just not cut out to be a USA and what I told her was is the day she should leave is the day that sentencings are not hard for her. We talked about this with pre Berrara on this very show about the fact that you never see real USA's or real agents, celebrating verdict in a courtroom, or gloating after sentencing because those are hard moments or at least they should be hard moments for everybody in that courtroom. That's absolutely right. And then you take some satisfaction that Justice is done. There are victims oftentimes in these cases, but it's not anything, you're happy about, and certainly when you when, you know of the ripple effects that are felt by innocent members of that individual's family that's really hard. I completely agree in those of the time. Types of people that I was looking for obviously, you were too, and that's how you know that the department really carries on that mission when there are people who take that responsibility to heart and they internalize that. And that's what they're seeking. I remember Dave more is at the department used to say it's not the department of prosecutions. It's the department of Justice, and that's what it is. David Margolis was my mentor and friend who passed away way too. Suddenly a way too young, but he had been the conscience of the department of Justice for decades and you and I both had the privilege of working with him, and it was a privilege, I got to work with him every day when I served as deputy attorney general, and that was one of the real treats when you were US attorney in Atlanta. There was a really interesting case from which your office was recused. Because it evolved, the prosecution of a sitting federal district judge in your district right judge camp and the. Underlying facts are kind of tawdry, and a little bit odd. He had become involved with an exotic dancer, and with drugs, and guns, and so was properly prosecuted, and he resigned from the federal bench. I'm more interested in what your office did as a result. Well, you're right. We were recused from the criminal prosecution since he was judge sitting in our district. I learned from Maine Justice that was handling this that they had learned about some statements that the judge had made in the course of his relationship with this woman, and what he had said was was that he treated African American defendants more harshly than he did white defendants. Apparently, there was some jealousy that he felt on with respect to her and her boyfriend, who was African American and this had engendered, some sort of feeling and him in that caused him to express his bias against African Americans to her. Which is a horrifying statement for anyone to make. Yes. Particularly for a federal district judge ride. And when we learned this, our reaction was well, but he was sitting on the bench presiding over trials and sentencing African American defendants. And even though this wasn't our case, we have a responsibility to do something about this. So when you say this wasn't our case, his prosecution Ryan your case, but all those other cases adjudicated sentence. We're case. Right. And some people thought will no one will ever know this. That's not acceptable either. No, no, no are thought was look, we've got to do something about it, and be, we've got to tell people about this. So I was so proud of the folks in our office, 'cause I gathered our supervisors, you know, in my conference, our name. We spent hours as we were talking through what this meant what the ramifications were, and what we could do about it. And by the way, at this point, you're a relatively new United States attorney. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. And again, this is not one of those problems, you know, you learn in law school, or even along the ways in USA of what you're gonna do about it. But we knew that our responsibility. Again, is to seek Justice. And so we were going to say that for any defendant, who had his or her case adjudicated by judge camp from the time that these statements were made on that person would get an automatic do of before another judge. We were going to file the motion, and we were going to seek to have this heard, again, by a new judge just for sentencing or deeper, than the he had not tried. Any cases during that time they had only been acceptance of guilty, pleas and sentencings. But we also knew that those kind of feelings are not feelings that really just come up overnight that, that kind of racial animus as something that he could have been carrying around before that time as well. We said that for any defendant, at anytime who wanted us to go back and review his case, and that meant read the entire transcript, you know, beginning to end go back and review his or her case and to look for any signs there that animus, even predating this time had infected that we would do that. And we went out publicly actually and held a press conference advising the public, first of this shocking information, but then at the same time telling them what we were going to do about it, and I was so proud of the USA's, and our office because I didn't have to assign a sin. Single one of those cases for review, people raised their hands and volunteered to do it on top of everything else, they had going on because they knew how absolutely essential. It was that the public trust and have confidence and our criminal Justice system and that they couldn't under those circumstances, unless we took that on that was exactly the part of the story, I was hoping you would tell that the men and women on your office volunteered for this duty. Yeah. I mean, that's that just humbling, and I didn't have to get up there and sort of lay the guilt, on or anything that this was something that was inside of them that, again, they took their responsibility as representatives of the people so seriously that they were standing in line to do this. So you had enough to cover the problem did anything change as result. They were some cases that were recent and sentences were changed were lower, whether that was because of racial animus, or otherwise, it's hard to ever know but that's the whole. Point is that it can't just be actual bias there. You have to have the appearance here of Justice as well. And so it was really really important that the public have confidence in the system. I think that's a credibly important, formulation. Our work has to be objectively fair, and it has to appear to be fair. And having the first thing without the second thing is not sufficient now. It's really not. And this could have been something that would have undermined how the public felt about the federal criminal Justice system and our district, but I think because the US as in my office were so willing to as I said, raise their hands and do the right thing here. We worked through it. That's not to say that didn't have an impact, but I think that hopefully people in the public saw that we took this seriously, and that we wanted to right the wrong, there was also interesting to me is at one bed, judge with one, sort of horrific view of mankind can have such a ripple effect on the Justice. On so many lives, it's still a system. That is supported by people. And when people do things like he did the ramifications are significant Nate, certainly our President Obama nominated you to be the US attorney, but also nominated you later to be the deputy attorney general the United States how lucky and I that's quite an honor. Oh my gosh. What a privilege, which explain you should explain what precisely that means what does that job entail? Well, it's essentially the chief operating officer of the department of Justice. The attorney general, is obviously, the top law enforcement officer for the entire country. But the deputy attorney general access the CO for a department of a hundred and thirteen thousand employees, which includes not only all of the US attorney's offices across the country, all of the components at main Justice. But also, the law enforcement components as you well know from your time, though, that FBI and as. The head of DA. But includes FBI DA in the Marshall service and the bureau of prisons. So it's, it's a pretty big operation job. Yeah. Did you come to it with any ideas of what you would like to do? And I ask that because it tends to be a reactive job, Noor so many issues every day that land on your desk, and that require your immediate attention that even if you come with things you'd like to do that, sometimes hard to do, I did come with some ideas, because I was the last two years of the Obama administration. So maybe a had in some ways the luxury of deadline, I knew that we only had two years there. And I'm talking about us here being the office of the deputy attorney general Odette to leave at the end of that two years. And thank all we had done was really handle the emergencies the crises, and they're plenty of those, but the handle those things that came across our desk. And so I had some ideas of things I wanted to do, but also talked with people in DOJ. Both the assistant jeez, as well as folks on my staff about what are some things that you think need to be done here. How do we want to impact the department? So there's some things that are different when we leave they were when we walked in the door having worked for you. I remember well, your interest with me. With you, and for you, but I remember, well, your interest in sentencing reform in prison, reform, and also something that I'd like an I'd love to talk about any or all of these things. But I recall your interest in implicit bias, all of us carry around unconscious biases. It doesn't mean that you're a racist. It means that our brains have ways of making shortcuts and we associate individuals with groups and sometimes they're avert biases here. I'm not to say that, that there aren't those things as well. But this unconscious bias seeps into how we make decisions. That's bad enough for regular people out there. But if you're in law enforcement, or you're a prosecutor and you have an unconscious bias that is impacting how you're making those decisions those decisions that can impact people's liberty. That's something we need to do something about. So what did you want to do wanted to train people, you know, we had learned. That there is training that law enforcement officers and prosecutors around the country on the state level had been involved in and that it can. At least I'm not gonna pretend that this fixes it, you can say check, you know, that's not a problem anymore, but it at least trains, people and alerts them to the biases that they're carrying with them and gets people, some tools to try to address it. And also, I think it's important that the department is acknowledging that this is an issue that it's an issue. We need to try to combat and we have a responsibility to do something about. I think you're right Sally being aware of it is better than not being aware of it, and whether or not it's sort of changes behavior makes people more sensitive to it. That's still valuable. Oh, absolutely. And, you know, again, this is not something that you're gonna fix with a little training course here. But at you not know that a lot of people came into this somewhat skeptically. But I think from the feedback that we got when people actually went through the. Raining, it opened their eyes to things that they didn't really realize that they were doing that was my sense to that people were somewhere between skeptical and oppressive up when they had the training, it opened up there is that's the goal. And look you were key among those who did some of this at the beginning. I think we needed to adjust along the way in terms of how to most effectively train law enforcement officers and prosecutors in ways that will be practical for them as well. And so I don't think you can just sort of take training and say, this is going to be it, you need to be willing to adapt to how it's going to make it more effective, and more useful. I'm glad you did that. Thank you. Thank you for that. And thank you for participating in it. You bet. So another thing near and dear to your heart was prison reform. Absolutely. This actually started back when I was she was attorney, and we had started a program, there were, we were going to connect service providers with people who are coming out of state prisons at that time. And to our most Challe. Hinging neighborhoods. And so we had a program that we started actually at the Lindsey street Baptist church. They are an English avenue in Atlanta, and we had different service providers of housing and jobs and drug treatment and others that were there. And we had a form for the folks that were coming out of prison to fill out of what services that they needed, what was so striking to me is when we're getting a lot of those forms back at the first meeting and a couldn't figure out why. So I went and sat down next to gentlemen on a church pew there and asked him why we haven't gotten there forms. And they of didn't really answer. Then one quietly leaned over to me and said, I can't read, and I realized that there were a lot of folks in that room that couldn't read they weren't going to raise their hands. You know, that's humiliating for them to have to tell us that they can't read so that really spawned my interest to want to find out. What are we doing to ensure that the people when they are in prison that we are giving them those basic tools that they need? To be able to be successful things like being able to read the drug treatment that they need the basic job training for jobs that will actually exist, when they get out of prison anger management, those things that are really absolutely essential for them to have just a fighting shot at being successful. When they get on the intro to move Sally, because we talked earlier, about stigma, whether it was mental health or addiction illiteracy is another type of stigma, my husband, who's a lawyer, actually, we both medications balding, but he missed the head of a school for children with learning disabilities, and who are deaf and hard of hearing, but they also have a teacher training institute for children who come from poverty, and particularly generational lack of access to education. And so I was very attuned. The literacy issues there as well and the kind of, impact that, that can have on people's lives for the rest of their lives. And so what to do ask the Federal Bureau of prisons to do, so we didn't have a lot of time. So we had some consultants come in and we look. At a whole variety of things. We looked at education. We looked at the job training that we were doing importantly, the halfway houses and the kind of services that were being provided there. And on the education side, we began a system there, a sensually building a school district within the Federal Bureau of prisons that would I assess each individual, when he or she is coming in to the federal prison system to find out where they are in that educational continuum is this somebody who could benefit from post-secondary, or is this someone we need to teach to read, or do they need to be able to get a high school diploma that would I assess them and then be able to tailor the educational things that were provided to them to what their needs were, and we had started a pilot project actually through tablets, essentially, rugged ipads that could be used in their cells. Because, you know, at the time really all that existed in the bureau prisons for the most part. Was a GED prep. Course it was a waiting list, thousands, and thousands of inmates long to be able to get into that GED print course if you were lucky enough for that. All you got was an hour, a day of education. What I found was is that in symptoms are good. And all, but we didn't have an issue with incentivizing individuals in prison to want to participate in. They, they were they were begging to get into these programs. We just didn't have the resources to provide the services. And so with the declining prison population as we were adjusting drug sentencing there we were able to essentially reprogram some of that money into the educational services because the truth is Sally that the overwhelming percentage of people who go to prison reenter society, like ninety five percent. We don't want them to go back. You can look at it from various different perspectives. But this is one of the smart. Just things that we can do from public safety standpoint. We know recidivism rights are now about sixty six percent. We know that those drop dramatically if an individual is able to engage a meaningful education programs, and even more than that, if I'm top of that they have meaningful job training programs. And so it's not just doing something nice for people who were imprisoned. It's the smartest thing we can do to make our communities more safe toward the end of the Obama administration. The attorney general Loretta Lynch, your direct boss resigned, President Trump sworn into office and his nominee for attorney general Jeff Sessions has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. And so for two hundred and forty hours for ten days. Sally Yates, you're the acting attorney general of the United States. Yeah. Well, there's a tradition at the department of Justice that the deputy attorney general stays on as the. Acting AG during a transition and unites important check in any agency for there to be continuity. But given the national security and the law enforcement responsibilities DJ, it's particularly important. And so our colder had done it when he served as Dag between the Clinton and Bush administration. So I was happy to do it during this time as well. When you spoke at Harvard Law School in two thousand seventeen out its class day exercises. You said the defining moments in our lives often don't come with advance warning during your ten days as acting attorney general President Trump issued an executive order one three seven six nine which restricted travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Can you talk about that a little bit? Yes. I mean this was entirely unexpected. There's this tradition that I just mentioned. But there's another tradition to, and that is that nothing happens during this time on that you're serving is the acting attorney general. And so I was actually leaving the white. House, the afternoon of the twenty seven after having been there talking with them about the situation with general Flynn and ambassador Kislyak and learned from principal deputy from a phone call. Because he read on the New York Times website that the president had signed this travel ban that we didn't know anything about there had been no inter agency process that you would normally have to try to figure out what it is the administration's trying to accomplish and how you could go about doing that. So what to do? Well, we spent the weekend actually trying to get our arms around what it was. They were trying to accomplish this was travel ban. One were on travel ban three now but travel ban one actually applied to people, for example, who had valid visas, and who were lawful permanent residents in our country. And so we had lawyers who had to be in court that next morning, Saturday morning to enforce the president's executive order, right? Because they were people who are literally in the air as the president signed this executive order that then were being turned away from the country when they landed here. So we spent the weekend, lots of discussions with the White House, trying to, again, sort of figure out who's in and who's out because it was not clear at all from the face of this executive order. What that was, and then on Monday morning. I learned that, that on Tuesday morning. The judge wanted the position of the department of Justice on the constitutionality and the lawfulness of this executive order amounts, your responsibility. Right. What was your view on its constitutionality? Well, I had been over the weekend and through that Monday morning, reading, all of the challenges going on and reading the cases, I mean, Chuck, you know, from your experience at DOJ normally for something by the time it gets to the deputy attorney general, even the enacting AJ, lots of people have reviewed it, and distilled it. There's no time for any of that. You know, we're just having to read the raw information. And so I wanted to hear from the people in the department both the career people and the Trump appointees about what those challenges were, and how we would defend this challenges. I wanted to hear their views as well. So call them all into the conference room, we have a big meeting, and we start going through the challenges in what our position would have to be on these assume to you that the -secutive order of the president's was motivated by religious animus against Muslims. And that's what became really clear to me as that to defend this hour's gonna have to send department of Justice lawyers into court to take the position that this executive order, had absolutely nothing to do with religion. And that's despite all the statements that the president of made not just on the campaign trail. But statements, he had made after that as well after he was. Elected. And that was in the face at the fact that this only applaud to Muslim-majority countries. But yet provided priority for Christians in this instance to, to send them in to advance a pretext and I don't think any lawyer should do that. And I sure don't think that department of Justice lawyer, should here's the fascinating thing to me. Traditionally if a senior officials put in that position they have a binary choice to enforce the law as the president has promulgated it or to resign. And I know you Wade, both of those options, but you came up with a third way a middle way. I did struggle. I mean I didn't get to struggle long. It was seventy two hours from the time I learned about this, and till then unaided to make decision. But I did. And you're right. That was that was something that might have been sort of the more obvious course to take. But here's the thing check is that I wasn't the head of the civil division or you know, one of the other components of the Depa. I was the acting attorney general of the United States, I was responsible for the entire department of Justice, and I actually remembered my confirmation hearing, when there were a number of senators that were asking me at the time, what will you do if the president ask you to do something that's unlawful or unconstitutional, or even that would bring dishonor to the department of Justice Senator Jeff Sessions, ask you that question. Absolutely was one of the primary, he, he wasn't alone, but he was one of the ones who was really pushing me on this, now the head a different president in mind at the time because President Obama was in office, but you know, they weren't saying, will you resign if the president ask you to do something that's unlawful or constitutional. They asked me will you say no and told him then at the time that I would and to me doing something less than that just. Resigning maybe that protects my personal integrity, but it's not protecting the department of Justice, and as the acting attorney general OB Aleve that, that, that was my responsibility. Sally. It's interesting to me, because I held the binary view that, either you follow the order or you resign, I came to believe that I was wrong, and you're right that by staying, and by refusing an unlawful order, you were better serving the department of Justice. I'd change my mind about that. And I wanted to tell you that and I wanted to tell our listeners that too, because taking that unusual path taking that third option is not easy. Is it? No. I mean, this, this whole thing again, is happening in a very compressed period of time. But, you know, Chuck, I mean you've made difficult decisions over the course of your life and your career. Now, remember, you know, talking with everybody in that conference room and then just going into my office and closing the door. And thinking about this, once you make a decision like this. I think oftentimes she you kinda know in your gut, whether you, you know, it's the right thing to do. And while I certainly knew there was going to be a storm after doing it. I felt a real calm about the decision is that where you came to that final decision in your office and by yourself? Certainly, I'd talked with other people. And I talked with Matt who was there. Asrat principal deputy. Right. Very talented guy. He's, he's fantastic, just just the best. And so certainly, you know, had talked with a lot of people in this. But ultimately, I didn't want to put that off on any of them. They can give me their views on things, but I needed to own that decision. You were fired right out. Did you learn you had been fired while I was still in the office, working it was several hours after this, and did note was a possibility. You know, if I if I wasn't smart enough to figure that out, I shouldn't have that job. But I will also tell you I hoped that wouldn't happen. I spent twenty seven years at DOJ. I love the department of Justice, a love what it stands for. And I did not want to end Musser of there with being fired but to have done anything other than that. I think would have been a betrayal of everything that I felt like all of those years before had stood for when you were actually fired you said. Yeah. Allies. You know it comes with a knock on the door. Matt had a door that opens into what was in my office, and I know that door well, because I once had Matt's office, as my own, right yet, and you know, that role to and you know how essential that Rawlins, and I'm sure it was like this for you and a hell like when you're close with somebody, you can knock on the door and open it at the same time. That's what mad and I always did going in and out of each other's offices. But when the not came this time the door didn't open. So I knew that, you know, went to the door, and that was there with a member of the Trump administration who had a letter from the White House to deliver to actually felt sorry for him. He was at DOJ appointee there, and he's a good guy. And look he was doing his job. So, you know, he hands me the letter and I think I may have thanked him. I'm not sure which is kind of a where I don't recall precisely there and sort of closed the door and the reality of that sort of hits at that. Moment. It was great. You know, there were people that from the office that sort of came back some did to, to walk me out and folks for my detail that were they are. So I sort of gathered some things, but I didn't pick up the whole office folks were nice enough to do that for me. You know, walked out of my office and down the stairs and out the doors of the department of Justice, pick up some of your stuff you put it in a box. You walk out, you get my car and they drive you home. Right. And that's it. That's it. Maybe that's not it. I hope there's a second after third act. Well, look the ability to serve in the department of Justice as align USA as US attorney as deputy attorney general and ever so freely. As acting attorney general was the honor of my life, and I will always be grateful for that opportunity. I can tell you on behalf of the men and women who served with you. And for you. We were better forward, an extraordinarily proud of what you did. Thank you, Chad. Sally, thank you so much for joining us really enjoyed it next time I get to ask you the questions, we'll see about that. Okay. My thanks Sally Yates for joining us today on the oath. She's a wonderful guest as you heard, and I'm very grateful to, and my thanks to all of our listeners who wrote to us and asked that Sally Yates beyond the show. Please continue to give us your feedback. Let us know who else you would like us to have his guests on the show. You can give us feedback at the oth podcast at g mail dot com. Next week on the oath. I sit down with Nicole walls, the host of MSNBC's deadline, White House, and the former director of communications for President George W Bush. I recently sat down with Ben witness the executive editor of law fair. And we talked about my show the oath. I think you'll enjoy it. Check it out. That's on the law. Fair podcast. Get it for free wherever you get your podcasts. The oath is a production of NBC news. And MSNBC the podcast was produced by fan Icho with fanny Cohen, Nick, Bannon, and rob a bear. Lauren Chadwick and laurel Heineman provided production support. Our senior producer is Barbara wrath, and Steve lick ties our executive producer. This is the oath with Chuck, Rosenberg. Thank you so very much for listening. The first presidential debate help that twenty twenty election to night of aunt Wednesday, June twenty six Thursday, June twenty-seventh live from abbey across three networks, NBC and MSNBC and Telemundo.

United States US attorney Atlanta Georgia attorney department of Justice Sally Yates Eric Rudolph lovey Morrison president deputy attorney general Justice department supervisor FBI Centennial Park officer North Carolina
Former FBI Official Goes Public with Talk of the 25th Amendment

CNN's The Daily DC

11:19 min | 2 years ago

Former FBI Official Goes Public with Talk of the 25th Amendment

"Hey, your confidence is important and sometimes one change can make all the difference hair. Club knows this and they're inviting you to become part of the hair club family to see how getting the most out of your hair can change your life. Go to hear club dot com slash teepee. N today for a free hair analysis and a free take home hairc-haircut all valued at over three hundred dollars. That's hair club dot com slash teepee. N for a free hair analysis and free haircare kit hair club dot com slash TBN with over two million Americans suffering from opioid addiction. Walmart is taking action to help communities across the country by limiting certain non chronic prescriptions to a seven day supply and requiring e prescriptions for controlled substances by twenty twenty to help tackle the crisis and save lives. Learn more at WalMart dot com slash prevention. Hey, everyone. I'm David challen, the CNN political director, and this is the daily DC. Thanks so much for listening today on the podcast. Former FBI official Andrew McCabe goes public with talk of the twenty fifth amendment. This is not a new piece of information. You'll recall that there had been reporting in the fall New York Times CNN and others that during that very chaotic period between the FBI director Jim Komi being fired by President Trump and the appointment of Robert Muller's the special counsel. We're going back to may twenty seventeen. Now that there was according to McCabe za count in a new book that he has out a meeting where the twenty fifth amendment was discussed. It was tossed around at the department of Justice wondering if the vice president and a majority of the president's cabinet would. Think about invoking the twenty fifth amendment which to remove Donald Trump from office in hindsight. That sounds you know, just Hollywood script style over the top melodramatic. It's also perhaps because we as a country have gotten so much more accustomed to the more chaotic nature of Trump's management style is tweeting the in his presidency that it feels perhaps overwrought in hindsight. But in that moment, we were only four months into the Trump presidency. I think the country was still learning how this new chief executive with no political experience was operating. But when he fired the FBI director, Jim Komi. There was a real collective gasp in official Washington across party lines and a bracing for woes. Oh, this is something so huge if indeed Donald Trump as he indicated to Lester Holt in that famous interview at the time fired the FBI director over that whole Russia thing the man who was overseeing an investigation into Russian interference in the two thousand sixteen election now McCabe, as you may recall was combs deputy when Komi was fired McKay became the acting director of the FBI and McCabe also has become complete rallying cry proof of the deep state, if you will the entrenched bureaucrats that were opposed Donald Trump. Donald Trump has often brought up the donations to his wife's campaign in Virginia for state legislative race that Terry McAuliffe had contributed to as a way to paint McCabe as an anti-trump Clinton loyalist kind of. Partisan figure, Sarah Sanders. The White House press secretary did not hold back at all today. In her statement, saying quote, Andrew McCabe was fired in total disgrace from the FBI because he lied to investigators on multiple occasions, including under oath, his selfish and destructive agenda. Drove him to open a completely baseless investigation into the president his actions were so shameful that he was referred to federal prosecutors, Andrew McCabe has no credibility, and is an embarrassment to the men and women of the FBI and our great country. That's the statement from Sarah Sanders now, I want I want you to hear Andrew McCabe who now has a book out or coming out next week. He's rolling out his book publicity to on sixty minutes and this morning on CBS this morning. They played an excerpt of Scott Pelley interview with him where McCabe talks about why he wanted. To move quickly on the Russian investigation and getting towards a potential special counsel or a fortified investigation into the matters of Russia's interference in the election. Irrespective of who was going to be at the helm of the FBI, remember deserting, the hours and days following the firing of the FBI director Jim Komi before rod Rosenstein appointed the special counsel. Here's McCabe describing what he wanted to do. And why I wanted to make sure that our case was on solid ground. And if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it. They would not be able to do that without creating a record of why that made that decision now that's McCabe 's case as to why he immediately wanted to shore up whatever was underway with the investigation to think about protecting it in any way possible from the whims of the president who had. Just fired his boss and the FBI director as he told lesser whole over the Russia investigation that wasn't of course, the official justification given in the rod Rosenstein, Jeff session letters that were released at the time of Komi firing. But in addition as I mentioned at the top of the podcast in addition to moving to protect the investigation in any way possible apparently Scott Pelley revealed this morning on CBS this morning that in this interview McCabe goes onto tell Pelly about a conversation concerning the twenty fifth amendment, and whether or not there should be a discussion or look into whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet may want to invoke that amendment to remove Donald Trump from office. Now, we'll see when we hear the whole interview how McCabe describes that. But vice president Pence was interviewed by Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, and he once again said. Said that he has no knowledge whatsoever and has never heard any discussion of the twenty fifth amendment. And of course, went onto fully support the president he serves as to why any discussion of the twenty fifth amendment would be unnecessary. Take a listen to vice president Pence today. Never heard of it. I never heard any discussion of the twenty fifth amendment, and frankly. I find any suggestion of it to be absurd. This president's been producing for the American people, and I couldn't be more proud to stand with him. And the words or the writings of the disgraced FBI agent won't change. That fact, the American never heard of this before I have never heard any discussion of the twenty fifth amendment by members of this government, and I would never expect to and a Justice department spokesperson put out a statement saying that Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general denies mccabe's account of any discussion of a voting the twenty fifth amendment. Here is a spokesperson at the department of Justice, quote as to specific portions of this interview provided to the department of Justice by sixty minutes in advance the deputy attorney general that's rod Rosenstein, again, rejects Mr. McCague's recitation of events as inaccurate. And factually incorrect now, this is in line with what the DA g the deputy attorney general had said back in the fall when this story I emerge. The same goes on the test. The deputy attorney general never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references as the deputy attorney general previously stated based on his personal dealings with the president. There is no basis to invoke the twenty fifth amendment. Nor was the deputy attorney general in a position to consider invoking the twenty fifth amendment. Finally, the deputy attorney general never spoke to Mr. Komi about appointing a special counsel, the deputy attorney general in fact appointed special counsel Muller and directed that. Mr. MacKay be removed from any participation in that investigation subsequent to this removal. DOJ's inspector general found the Mr. McCabe did not tell the truth to federal authorities on multiple occasions leading to his termination from the FBI. Now, that's a pretty carefully worded statement in many ways, it doesn't fully address what McCabe alleges here. But it does say things like that Rosenstein. Was never in a position to consider invoking the twenty fifth amendment will. That's certainly true is deputy attorney general he would not be. So it's very, you know, very specific crafted language, but clearly trying to show the president that he's backing here and we'll push hard on McCabe. And listen, we've seen Komi push on McCabe to when revelations came out about his untruthful remarks to investigators Qomi said the that that was unacceptable when when asked about that. So McCabe is sort of a darling of the right now in a big figure and somebody that Trump loves to use in his tweets into rally is based around as the very essence of what he's talking about. When he's talking about either never Trumpers or Democrats or anti-trump people embedded in the bureaucracy trying to do everything possible to rein in Trump, remove Trump. What have you he's he's like example number one of that? But McCabe is clearly gonna have his day in the court of public opinion now with his book. Doc with the telling of this story, and once again, this White House is having to answer questions today about an alleged discussion of having the twenty fifth amendment invoked in the early days of this Trump presidency again directly tied to how the president was responding to the rush investigation. This is all of that piece of any potential obstruction of Justice narrative that Mueller may or may not come out with a when he issues his report that does it for this edition of the daily DC. Thank you all so much for listening. Hope you'll tune in again right here on Monday. The daily DC is taking tomorrow off. Smith here from the hang time podcast. Join me, and my main man John Shuman every week as we break down, the latest, NBA, news and storylines with. Yes. From around the league, we should've subscribed to NBA hang time on apple podcast Spotify. An NBA dot com slash podcast for new episodes every Monday and Thursday this season.

Andrew McCabe President Trump FBI president Jim Komi deputy attorney general director rod Rosenstein vice president Trump special counsel DOJ hair club official Scott Pelley CBS DC Walmart TBN Russia
The Next 24 Hours May Be the Most Important of Trump's Presidency to Date

The Point with Chris Cillizza

02:44 min | 2 years ago

The Next 24 Hours May Be the Most Important of Trump's Presidency to Date

"Portrait of the point for Wednesday, September the twenty. Sixth, I'm Chris cillizza cutting through the political spin. Bringing the news, you need to know, holy moly the news cycle tomorrow. Thursday is going to be an epic day in Washington. You have two huge things happening. One Brett cabin on the woman, accusing him of sexual assault. Christine Blasi Ford will testify separately in front of the Senate Judiciary committee, and that will be broadcast on virtually any channel you can find on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue. Donald Trump will meet with rod Rosenstein. The current deputy attorney general, the man who we thought had either resigned or been fired from his job earlier this week, and the man who at the moment is Bob Muller's boss in charge of the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the twenty sixteen election. Even before that Trump is set to address the media. He's going to have a press conference at five pm on Wednesday, his fourth press conference since taking over the White House, and we know that he believes thanks to CNN's reporting that break having us not doing a good enough job of defending himself. So that Trump is riding to the rescue, at least he thinks he is. So we have Trump cavenaugh, press conference, Rosenstein all in the next twenty four hours. This is a perfect storm for Donald Trump. He's frustrated. He's isolated his legacy in his first term when it comes to break having all looks to be in jeopardy, and he has to make a decision when it comes to read Rosenstein regarding something that could have profound impacts not just on the motor investigation, but on Trump's entire presidency, it is not an exaggeration to say, this could be the most consequential twenty four hours that we have seen in the nineteen months of Donald Trump's presidency. So watch closely that's news. You need to know for September the twenty six four much more. Please check out my Email newsletter. You can subscribe to it by going to CNN dot com. Slash the point. You can also subscribe to this audio briefing can do that on Stitcher, Spotify, apple podcasts, or wherever you like to get your podcasts can also caught up on your Amazon echo or your Google home device. Do me a favor. Check out our brand new point. YouTube show. So weekly show where I go in depth on a topic in the news. The one coming up is Democrats and socialism and democratic. Socialism just type the point on YouTube or go to YouTube dot com slash CNN and you'll be able to find the video there.

Donald Trump rod Rosenstein Trump cavenaugh CNN YouTube Chris cillizza Christine Blasi Ford Senate Judiciary committee Washington deputy attorney general White House Brett assault Bob Muller special counsel Spotify Google apple Amazon twenty four hours
AP Headline News Feb 20 2019 05:00 (EST)

AP Radio News

05:01 min | 2 years ago

AP Headline News Feb 20 2019 05:00 (EST)

"Sky diving. This is amazed. Yep. But you know, what else is amazing an iphone six s for just forty nine bucks at metro really imagine streaming all the way down with that amazing camera. I've switching that smart. You know, what else is smart parachutes? Switched to metro and get an amazing iphone six s for only forty nine bucks metro by T mobile. Phone requires porting of number not currently active on T mobile network are active on metro and past ninety days. See store for details and terms and conditions. The weather. We certainly get enough of this year in Ireland, but sunshine, well since scale at the fact is we just don't get enough sunshine. So we need to get our sunshine vitamin d from somewhere else. Switch to oven war superman, and you get all the daily sunshine vitamin d you need just one. Our weather's not super. But that's okay. Ivan more superman. AT radio news. I'm Rita Foley. Millions of Americans are in the path of a fear snow and ice storm several inches of snow is expected from the mid west of the mid Atlantic and northeast it's expected to taper off tomorrow says the national weather service right now, it's snowing in Minneapolis where it's eighteen degrees. President Trump has nominated someone to succeed deputy attorney general rod Rosenstein resident Trump has nominated deputy transportation secretary Jeffrey Rosen to succeed rod Rosenstein, as deputy attorney general. The sixty year old Rosen served as general counsel and senior policy advisor at the White House office of management and budget from two thousand six to two thousand nine he was also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University is currently the department of transportation's chief operating officer. And he oversees the department's safety of technological priorities. Mike rossier? Washington. She knows now she was wrong, and she wants to come home and Alabama woman who left to join the Islamic state now wants to return to the United States as a family lawyer. What is the US think of that State Department spokesman Robert palladino was asked about twenty four year old Hoda Muthanna v? Situation. The American citizens or possible American citizens in Syria is by definition of extremely complicated. And we're looking into these cases the better understand the details at the moment. She's living in a refugee camp in Syria with her eighteen month old son, whom she had with an ISIS fighter who was killed. The Trump administration says it's scrapping plans to give California billions for a high speed rail project governor Gavin Newsom calls at political retribution California's leading the fighting court against President Trump's declaration of a national emergency to build a border wall. This is AP radio news. Have you done your taxes yet? Many Americans are stunned by the impact of the new tax law or many people tax filing season has been a time to get money back from the government, but the new federal tax laws proving to be surprising. Confusing and at times frightening for Americans used to getting a refund. Many workers didn't have enough in taxes set aside. And now the IRS wants that money. The IRS says the number refunds filed so far this year is down about sixteen percent. And as of the second week of filing. The average refund was just under two thousand dollars down almost nine percent from a year ago, I'm Mike helping Samsung is expected to show off its latest smartphones today, and it's expected to give us up. He at a much talked about phone with a foldable screen tech companies have been trying to come up with new features for their phones that will make you wanna buy them and end a sales slump. Rita foley. AP radio news, Chuck. Traveling home for the holidays well with the Capital One venture card. You earn unlimited double miles on any purchase you make today and everyday and those miles add up to get you closer to that trip. Home. Every time you pump gas double miles every time. You get your nails done double miles, or if you're in charge of buying the Turkey. Yep. Double mile. You are an unlimited double miles on every purchase. And then you go. Capital One venture card the card that takes you there. What's in your wallet? Couple went back USAA wherever you go. However, you go for energy of ago, it's got to be five hour energy it works fast. It works long. It tastes good and was Ciro sugar and four calories. There's nothing holding you back fits your pocket fits your backpack. Fits your on the go life. Whether you're going to work going on vacation or just going out with friends five hour energy energy on the go. For more information. Visit five hour energy dot com.

President Trump Jeffrey Rosen Rita Foley Capital One AP deputy attorney general Syria rod Rosenstein IRS United States California Mike rossier Minneapolis Washington Ciro sugar Samsung Alabama Gavin Newsom
AP Headline News Nov 07 2018 19:00 (EST)

AP Radio News

04:01 min | 2 years ago

AP Headline News Nov 07 2018 19:00 (EST)

"Heads to Macy's backstage for fines, you won't believe and prices, so low you can't resist. So what's hot for cold weather? Well, Bo is fabulous. Find fo- best and jackets starting at thirty nine ninety nine. Those must have four trim bags you love. They start at twenty nine ninety nine. And guys. We've got the police implant you'll live in all season starting at nine hundred ninety nine where all about keeping the whole family warm. You never know what you'll find. You'll always find something for info and locations. Visit macysbackstage dot com. AP radio news. I'm Tim Maguire hours at the last votes were cast in yesterday's midterm elections. President Trump demanded attorney general Jeff Sessions resignation sessions. Chief-of-staff Matthew Whitaker has been named acting. Attorney general spokeswoman says he will be in charge of all issues before the Justice department. Presumably that includes the Muller investigation now overseen by deputy attorney general rod Rosenstein, Trump advisor, Kellyanne Conway was asked by reporters, why Rosenstein was at the White House today, the deputy attorney general so he has a lot of business here at the White House. I think he'll be back tomorrow for different meeting. Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins warns the Trump administration not to undermine the investigation a special counsel Robert Muller following sessions resignation Muller's investigating any possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, President Trump's already tense relationship with the media gets even worse during a. Post-election news conference at the White House. Here's the AP saga megani in the ornate East Room. Are you that's enough put down the mic? The president went added with several reporters, including CNN's, Jim Acosta. You are a rude. Terrible person. You shouldn't be working for CNN. There were exchanges with other reporters. Sit down. I didn't call you. I didn't call you including one where the president labeled a question about whether he emboldens white nationalist racist. Would you said so insulting to me? He's blaming the media for political divisions. CNN says while it's clear the president does not respect a free press. He has the constitutional responsibility to protect it. Saga megani? At the White House after saying he wants to work with house. Democrats Trump also warned the soon to be majority not investigate him or his administration had nothing zero. You know, why? Because there is nothing but they can play that game. But we can play it better. Because we have a thing called the United States Senate. This is AP radio news, Samsung and other smartphone makers hope people will flock to footabll screen phones. Julie Walker has more wondering what it looks like in real life. And how it works Samsung S VP, Justin Denison shows it off at a presentation, he says when it's open, it's a tablet offering big screen experience, but closed it's the phone that fits in your pocket, the Infinity flex display represents and Tirlian new mobile platforms. Samsung's releasing it next year, and it's expected to compete against several other flexible screen phones with prices above a thousand dollars. I'm Julie Walker landlords Ken and do find just about anything while victim tenant. But one in Kansas City, Missouri never expected an alligator in a hot tub nearly six foot long reptile name catfish by the tenant was removed by specialist animal control workers also found a pair of boa constrictors and a rabbit in the home. Home. I'm Tim Maguire AP radio news. Egner tain -ment designed just for you, then checkout, customizable, streaming TV for mixed finishing. It makes your life. Simple easy. Awesome. Gives you customizable, streaming TV options. Enjoy the most free shows anywhere on any device and even access your streaming apps. Right on your TV with x one. Good. What's Finnerty dot com? A one eight hundred eighty or visit a store today. To learn more restrictions apply.

President Trump White House president CNN AP rod Rosenstein Tim Maguire Samsung attorney Robert Muller Julie Walker deputy attorney general Trump Macy Bo Jeff Sessions Matthew Whitaker Senator Susan Collins Jim Acosta United States Senate
AP One Minute Headlines Mar 25 2019 05:00 (EDT)

AP Radio News

02:01 min | 2 years ago

AP One Minute Headlines Mar 25 2019 05:00 (EDT)

"One hundred thousand fans are on their feet. A hush falls over the stadium in the waning seconds of the game. Amidst the silence you think to yourself there's only one play to call here to run straight to your authorized Mercedes-Benz dealer and test drive. The all new two thousand nineteen eight class sedan partisan, the first Arab the Mercedes Benz user experience. It seamlessly connects you and your car with natural voice recognition the Mercedes Benz a class sedan for the future takes the field. Visit MBA USA dot com slash class. To learn more Mercedes Benz the best or nothing. Seen more of the USA than ever before. With American Airlines. Fly direct to Dallas Fort Worth from Dublin airport this summer and connect onwards to over two hundred forty destinations across North America. Enjoy complimentary meals drinks from the bar transatlantic WI fi live TV and over a thousand hours of entertainment on board. Our state of the art Dreamliner start your next big adventure with American Airlines at AAA dot com. I'm Rita Foley with an AP news minute. President Trump is declaring victory complete exoneration. The attorney general says lead investigator robber Muller found no evidence the President Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. But he also says Muller reached no conclusion as to whether Mr. Trump obstructed Justice. Democrats are demanding to see Moller's full report. Democrat Jerry Nadler chairs the House Judiciary committee. The president has not been exonerated by the special. Council yet. The attorney general has decided not to go further or apparently to share those findings with the public. We cannot simply rely on. What may be a hasty partisan interpretation of the facts Robert Muller's conclusions were summarized by the attorney general William bar in a four page letter to congress, the attorney general said he and the deputy attorney general had determined that Muller's evidence was insufficient to prove in court. The President Trump had committed obstruction of Justice to interfere with the investigation. I'm Rita Foley.

President Trump robber Muller attorney Benz Rita Foley president American Airlines deputy attorney general Jerry Nadler MBA USA Dallas Fort Worth USA WI Dublin House Judiciary committee AAA dot Moller William bar
Trump accuses McCabe and Rosenstein of being behind "treasonous" plot that was part of "illegal coup attempt"; Roger Stone apologizes to federal judge after posting image of her with crosshairs near her head; Several states to sue Trump over emergency dec

Erin Burnett OutFront

44:41 min | 2 years ago

Trump accuses McCabe and Rosenstein of being behind "treasonous" plot that was part of "illegal coup attempt"; Roger Stone apologizes to federal judge after posting image of her with crosshairs near her head; Several states to sue Trump over emergency dec

"This podcast is brought to you by book dotcom in partnership with the cantata row tourism board, book dot com. The number one site for all inclusive beach vacations. Out front next President Trump accuses his own deputy attorney general treasonous acts illegal or just doing his job. Plus Roger stone attacks the judge in his case. Posting a photo of her with crosshairs next to her head what he's saying now about the threatening image. Plus, Joe Biden appears to answer the question, so many are asking will he or won't he run? Let's go out front. Good evening, everyone. I'm Kate Baldwin in for Erin Burnett. Welcome to a special edition of out front tonight, treason or cautious. Deliberation. That's the question tonight. After President Trump accused his own deputy attorney general of planning illegal acts why because according to former acting direct FBI director, Andrew McCabe. He and rod Rosenstein seriously discussed wearing a wire to record the president and also invoking the twenty fifth amendment to remove him from office. Discussion of the twenty fifth amendment was was simply rod raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort the deputy attorney general offered to wear a wire into the White House. He said, I never get searched. Now, he was not joking. He was absolutely serious. And in fact, he brought it up in the next meeting. We had to that the president called McCabe disgraced and arranged then accusing the to those two top officials of quote, planning a very illegal act and got caught. This was the legal intrigues Innis insurance policy. In full action says the president on Twitter this morning. So to be clear McCain Rosenstein, they may disagree on what? And how things were discussed and they seem to disagree in quite a bit. But they definitely agree that they did not act on anything even. So the president today. Seems to be taking his Hughes from a conservative ally. And Fox News quoting him in a tweet with this. This was an illegal coup attempt on the president of the United States to which the president writes true, Laura Jarrett is out front live in Washington US right now. So Laura Rosenstein already on his way out the door in this kind of a sense of the word of the Justice department. I mean, he's long been planning to leave after the new AG arrived. What does all this mean for Rosenstein exit? Well, Kate, the deputy attorney general has been here before somehow weathering the McCabe storm when it seem like his days word, frankly number and as we've reported Rosenstein wants to help with the transition for his successor at the Justice department, but the president's displeasure was clearly on full display today. And we know that attorney general Bill bar has picked Jeffrey Rosen, the transportation department deputy secretary to likely serve as his deputy his number two at DOJ. Also, no word tonight from Rosenstein on McCain's interview and all those explosive comments, but the Justice department. Statements on his behalf. So far have consistently tried to focus on what Rosenstein actually did. Or didn't do as opposed to what might have been discussed as you mentioned one source in the room telling me when Rosenstein where was wearing the wire that idea of all of that came up. He told me it was just viewed as sarcasm but McCabe adamant on sixty minutes that was no laughing matter at all. And meanwhile, Capitol Hill has taken notice with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee suggesting over the weekend. He will subpoena McCabe an Rosenstein to testify if necessary. Yeah. One and talk about that in just a moment, greatest, you Laura. Thanks so much was we now former Nixon White House counsel John dean, former assistant secretary for the department of homeland security under President Obama, Juliette Cayenne and former chief of the organized crime section at the department of Justice, James trustee. He's also a longtime friend of the effort mentioned rod Rosenstein, guys. Thanks for coming in John, President Trump is accusing both McCabe and Rosenstein, essentially, if treason, I mean, I. I'm paraphrasing. But I don't think I'm going to far this is from the president of the United States. I know we see a lot of tweets. I know the president has a lot of things I know we're in a different time, but the president of the United States accusing to these two top officials of treasonous acts. What do you do with? It's absolutely absurd. It shows. The man one has no knowledge what actually treason is. But Secondly, he thinks like a monarch the somehow these people have made a bad act against him is a quivalent with a bad act against the country. And they don't quite that way. Treason does not define as an attack on president. This is no coup. These people were planning this is a president who really doesn't have a good grip on reality at times. Is talk of invoking the twenty fifth amendment or wearing a wire to record conversation with the president of serious thing. Absolutely. I'll answer it for you. But while they they don't agree on how these conversations took place. Both do agree that none of it went anywhere. Is there anything? No. And they'll disagree about the tone is certainly nothing illegal about the twenty fifth amendment. The constitution envisions its own sort of out clause for the president. And I just wanna put everyone back to where these two men were so non-political men McCabe in Rosenstein Rosenstein, and the madness around them. So by the time, they're having this conversation. The president has rejected or ignored evidence. That has first national security advisor, Mike Flynn, maybe a Russian asset. He rejects calls to fire him. He's gotten rid of Sally Yates, the deputy attorney general who told him about Flynn, he's publicly mocking Jeff Sessions as attorney general for for recusing himself from the investigation. He's fired Komi. He's undermined his intelligence communities assessment of the Russian influence in the campaign. And right all along. He is undermining the investigation. So to me the fact they're having this conversation is actually not that shocking. We're just forgetting what it was like in those months, and what was and and to have a president like that, you know, with the scope and the depth of conversations and lies that he's having with the Russians, you know, the twenty fifth amendment seems like the least of the conversations they should have been having just that is releasing something James you've known rod Rosenstein for years. You saw this interview with Andrew McCabe. Let me play you what? Mccabe says about Rosenstein and wearing the wire listen to this. He said, I never get searched. When I go into the White House. I can easily wear a recording device. They wouldn't know it was there. Now, he was not joking. He was absolutely serious. And in fact, he brought it up in the next meeting. We had I never actually considered taking him up on the offer. He says Rosenstein brought it up not once but twice Rosenstein through the Justice department. They deny it by saying the deputy attorney general never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe. References. Can they both be right? I think it's pretty unlikely. I mean, I don't want to try to psychoanalyze McCabe. But this is I don't think we should gloss over how fundamental the differences are between. What rod has said. Or what the OJ has said. And what McCabe is said. And that means you have to start assessing credibility instead of jumping ahead and assuming like apparently even the president does that there was a coup in motion. This is a situation where rod Rosenstein says it didn't happen at best. Maybe there were sarcasm. I I don't think McCabe is so sluggish to the idea of sarcasm that he couldn't guess it. But he's got some serious credibility problems. He's been found to have lied by the inspector general multiple times. He's hawking a kiss until book as a disgraced former official, and he's flailing around partly at Trump, but partly at others to bring people down. Do you? I mean, the way DOJ writes about it though. It's about that. He didn't authorize any actions. You don't do just that they had real conversations? If he brought it up twice. There's earlier statements that came out that said that at best. There was something that was said sarcastically, and again part of this you can maybe disqualify me on some level. But part of this is knowing rod Rosenstein, he is not so foolish as to think that the twenty fifth amendment was in play. He's also not so crazy to think that he's going to go where a wire into the White House. Just do not ring true to anybody that knows rod as a constitutional scholar as a serious prosecutor career prosecutor for many years it rings like somebody who's selling a book worried about criminal charges and who has a checkered history not dismissing you at all. But make which your perspective makes us all the more interesting. And fascinating, quite frankly. I mean, John let me play you something else. Then the Cape said in this interview that wouldn't considering whether or not to appoint a special counsel Rosenstein wanted to get advice from Jim Komi about it. Listen. He raised the issue with me twice. And ultimately, I told him that I wasn't comfortable connecting him with Jim Komi that I didn't think Jim should weigh in on these things. Why not because at that point? Jim was no longer a member of the government, and it would have been improper to have him weighing in on these decisions. The Justice born again in the statement on this one they said that Rosenstein never spoke to Mr. Komi about appointing a special counsel. And if that doesn't seem to be really the question from what you hear from McKay because he says they obviously weren't putting touch why from your perspective, John, why would Rosenstein want commes advice after all the head gone down. Well, I'd I don't know. We don't know. It was actually said it's all hearsay. We're getting trying to pieces back together. I can only imagine that. Here's a man who has never been at the level of deputy attorney general has never appointed a special counsel before. And if he did in fact want to talk to Comi, he's got a more season partner to sort of bounce it around with McCabe was right though. And see, and obviously roasting didn't do it. And that was wise not to because it would have only been made it look more collusive the whole undertaking to appoint a special counsel. We don't know to this day to my knowledge of how Muller's name was selected. I don't not sure I've never seen any press on where that came from. So obviously, they did the right thing and in the process here. So these are possible. What if we're looking at Juliet looking forward? This is all getting a lot of. Not only in the public. But also on Capitol Hill Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, the chair of the judiciary committee. He is making it quite clear that he is not done with this when it comes to the twenty fifth amendment and the whole concept of wearing a wire let me play you what he said yesterday. The whole point of congress existing is to provide oversight of the executive branch. So I promise your viewers the following that we will have a hearing about who's telling the truth. What actually happened will you subpoena, McCabe and Rosenstein to appear? How can I not at? That's what it takes seems to think that McCabe McCain Rosenstein could be in real trouble here. Julia. Do you think they could be? You know, I I don't know. I will say that Graham, and the president spent a lot of time attacking critics of of the president and never discussing that the investigation will actually exonerate the president. So if I were McCabe rosenstone, I would say bring it on. I would because you Lindsey Graham's knocking to do it because he has no idea what motivated either man to act that way. And I would guess what motivated them even if they disagree is going to be something not very complimentary to the president of the United States. So I think this is all Graham doing his his bidding for Donald Trump. And I just want to say one thing about the McCabe Rosenstein, we have a tendency to think of people either good or bad, you know, one side or the other. I think this is a perfect example of James was seen in which motivations are really odd. In these cases, McCabe, an Rosenstein, you know, Komi all of them. And I think you know, part of what? Moeller is clearly doing is trying to get out of the psychology of these men, and maybe even competition amongst them to try to get to the facts because McCabe had some background Rosenstein was responsible for the firing or at least wrote the memo to fire Komi. Nobody's perfect. They're under tremendous pressure. And that's why you have a separate arbiter on this stuff. It big row sick. Of course. And I know, you know, you agree with this. It was a president who made that final decision on that fire when it comes to Jim Komi on that though, James if you look at all the officials, and I I was kind of this kind of dawned on me that I wanted to ask you who are kind of swept up in this. If you wanna call it, then FBI director, Jim call me, he had his say after being fired writing a book and doing mediatory inter McCabe trying to have his say after being fired. And and he's releasing a book, we know Rosenstein is expected to leave the Justice department soon. Do you think he wants to have his say after he leaves after all of this will if he does I want to be as agent, but I don't think so I think he's the kind of guy that is very long run. Historical minded, and so I don't think he's a big fan and kinda kissing Intel contemporaneous accounts of important events. So I could be wrong. But my guess is that he will move onto the next job with the same kind of you know, what I would call quiet dignity that he has now and that he's not going to run around and try to you know, be zone advocate or sell books. Again. This is a pretty extraordinary situation on a lot of levels. But one that top FBI officials are doing kiss until books to embarrass any president is kind of a bad moment law enforcement history. I think a lot of rank and file FBI would agree with me. A fascinating moment in history on many levels. Thanks, guys. I really appreciate it. Thanks for coming in front next. We some breaking news Roger stone. Just emitting an apology to his judge after posting an image of her with crosshairs next to her head will the apology enough to keep him out of more legal trouble. Plus several states are about to sue the Trump administration over the president's emergency declaration. But do they have a case? And did the White House really pushed a pan the nominate President Trump for the Nobel peace prize. Hiring is challenging, but there's one place. You can go were hiring is simple, fast and smart that places ZipRecruiter with their powerful matching technology. Ziprecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and invite them to apply to your job. Ziprecruiter is so affective that eighty percents of employers who post on recruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the first day and right now listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address ZipRecruiter dot com slash out front. That's ZipRecruiter dot com slash. Oh, you T F R O N T. Ziprecruiter, the smartest way to hire. Ranking isn't right now Roger stone apologizing to the judge in his case tonight after President Trump's longtime adviser who is under federal indictment and facing some serious jail. Time posted on Instagram not once but twice today attacks against judge. Amy Berman Jackson, calling it an upcoming show trial next to a picture of the judge actually not showing you the picture due to its dangerous implications, but the image had what appears to be the distinct image of crosshairs behind her. And with that stone is now doing damage control. Sara Murray is out front, Sarah. It seems y'all can't guess what? The next turn is going to be with stone. And clearly realizes the possible indications of this because he's taking it back a couple times now and is trying to backtrack. But honestly, what is he doing here so much explaining today? There were two separate photos of the judge. Then there was an explanation. He posted on Instagram saying, this is being misinterpreted. And then another explanation he posted on Instagram saying, no, no, that's una crosshairs. That's just the logo of the website where we got. This photo. And now, it seems that stone or perhaps someone on his legal team realized this could be a very big problem and get him an even more legal trouble. And so he is formally apologized to the court to the judge. This is what he said in a filing that they just put out please inform. The court that the photograph and comment today was improper and should not have been posted. I had no intention of disrespecting the court and humbly apologize to the court for the transgression Kate it says to the court there, but make no mistake. Roger stone is apologizing to the judge, and I'm sure he's hoping that this judge who sheets tough is not going to look at the rules of his bail and decide you know, what he cannot handle himself out of jail. Maybe you should await trial from a cell. She did that with Paul Manafort, although that was for witness tampering. So we'll see if the judge response Kate. Absolutely. And like this front Donald Trump, Roger stone, not one to apologize so much. So you see that he really realizes it tonight. Great to see their thanks so much out front now. Harry Santa Caceres, former assistant. Attorney for the southern district of New York and David Gergen, a former presidential adviser to four presidents. Okay. Harry when the judge finds out about this. Apology included. What is the possible fallout? I'm think that the way he handled it, by the way stone handle it by taking down the offending image. And then submitting this apology will minimize the likely fallout. It's possible. He'll get a warning. It's possible that he'll have to come to court and explain how this happened and promise not to do it. Again. I would be surprised just as a matter of my own experience. If he were actually put in as we just mentioned a moment ago when Manafort was detained he was detained in basically because of witness tampering, which is more serious than this, very very bad Instagram post. Yeah. Poor choices, I think not even close to what one should say about it, David the president of the United States attacks judges and the judicial branch with relative regularity. And if they don't decide in his favor we have seen this over and over again. So. So I guess on some level. Should anyone be surprised? This is a road that Roger stone. His ally has confidante his advisor longtime advisor wants to even wanted to walk down. Well, you might think that he would consider it. But you would never think he would do it. And I because of the active such utter stupidity. I mean here he is coming soon to come before this female judge who is Bama appointee. Who Paul metaphor his friend went before this judge? He threw the book at him. Paul Manafort could will die in jail. He's his he's a crumpled, man. I we we've now heard tales heroin tales about what's happening to him in in prison. How his life has changed. How lonely I depress? He is. He doesn't see his family. Roger stone must also worry that if he goes there. He's you know, he's seen as something of a dandy. Well, he'd be physically safe. He will be subject to rape. I'm must be a lot of things that are going through his mind. Oh my God. What do I got myself into? So in light of that how odd perfectly odd. To even post this thing, especially with that crosshairs, which a signal to everybody and got people on the dark net. Just really got conspiracy theories rolling during the day, how ATI did this. But the bigger question is why is it the president of the United States? Why is he over the years surrounded himself with so many odd people many of whom are now heading for the slammer? And when you take Harry when you take you look at the Paul Manafort case in the kind of the gag order that was put in place there, you look at Roger stone case, and the I I've been calling it a partial gag order. If you will and kind of the circumstances on it is this one of those things that could change the terms of that it absolutely could. I mean, one thing the judge might consider doing is to place. Further restrictions on him. Maybe some sort of modified home detention, which of course, was something that Manafort was subject to for time. So it is possible. The conditions will be increased she framed the gag order. The same way that she did in the gates. Manafort case that in substance, he can't say things that would prejudice the administration of Justice. Maybe she needs to make clear to him. In case. There's any doubt this sort of thing would potentially prejudice the administration of Justice. This is what we're talking about. And you'll be held in contempt or worse. If you do it again. So it wouldn't surprise me. If there was some sort of warning some sort of fall out, but the speed with which he took it down and then submitted this unusual apology. I think from most judges would be taken as an acknowledgment that this person understands that they did something terrible. And hopefully won't the line that went over line quick and tried to run back really quick, David. I wanna ask about the broader Russia investigation because the chair of the house intelligence committee, Adam Schiff, he told data bash this, and I'll play it for you about evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign or Trump himself. Listen. Look, you can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion. Pretty compelling evidence. Now, there's a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. The chair of the Senate Intel committees sees it differently. I mean, all along it's been about finding evidence of collusion is shipped somehow trying to move the goalpost with the way, he's framing it. Now. I think he is in what's relevant about this is I think he has set a lower bar than the Senate has Senator Burr his set on the Senate intelligence he said lower bar for what constitutes possibly an an indicte- indictment for an impeachment proceeding. And that's what's important here is that is the house and shift himself who's going to be pivotal to deciding how to proceed on potential impeachment. And if he sets a low bar saying, it's based on patterns it. We look at if you just connect the dots. It looks like collusion. Whereas if you took into a court of law the bar would be higher you'd have to have proof and series evidence. And I think it's therefore important that Schiff is setting the bar somewhat lower and also important that in the end, it would be also Republicans in the Senate in the majority who decide on how that that beat you. Great to see you both. Thank you so much for us next. President Trump's Nash. Emergency face can new legal challenge tonight lost cause or do critics have a case. Now, new New Mexico's attorney general part of the case is out front, and will he or won't he former vice president Joe Biden was asked that very question, and it appears he may have answered it. How are you? A book dotcom vacation includes a beautiful all inclusive beach resort with all meals, all drinks, including alcohol activities taxes. Tips all included are most popular destination for all inclusive resorts is Mexico's Caribbean coast including Cancun Riviera Maya the people food history. And of course, the beaches make this a great reason to go, and here's one more right now. Save up to seventy percent off all inclusive. Mexico vacations on book dotcom. Imagine yourself relaxing all day on the beach shore by the pool with unlimited food and drinks all included sound good. Head over to book dot com slash podcast to save up to seventy percent off your next all inclusive vacation that's book dot com slash podcast. Welcome back to a special edition about front tonight several states or filing a lawsuit challenging President Trump's emergency declaration. The states are set to argue that the president's declaration, violates the constitution. The separation of powers and trying to go around congress to get more money for the border wall. Kaitlan Collins is out front. Caitlyn? The president made quite clear last week. They were preparing for this. But what are they doing about? It. They knew that lawsuits were coming. Now. They're waiting to see back sit back and see how many lawsuits there are going to be Kate. And what those losses are going to argue are they going to try to save this is to overuse earn a an overreach of presidential power. Or are they going to try to argue that this isn't a real emergency. And President Trump said so himself in the rose garden when he said, I didn't have to do this. But I thought I'd do it much faster. If it's a second front, we already seen White House officials try to go back and clarify the president's remarks, including Stephen Miller in an interview yesterday when he said, the president was simply saying he did something that other presidents in the past have not done. Now, the president laid out in the rose garden he believes this is something that could go all the way to the supreme court. And that if it does they could rule in his favor. But of course, Kate we're still going to wait and see if it even goes that far. And if they do if they do agree that this is not some kind of overreach of his executive powers the long road there. That's for sure greatest. Caitlyn? Thank you out front with me. Now, one of the attorneys general that science signing on to. This lawsuit democratic attorney general v Mexico Hecuba Hector Balderas attorney general thank you for being here. It's great to be with you. Why are you joining this lawsuit? Well, New Mexico is being harmed because the president cannot lacked like a king, this is taxpayer money and in New Mexico. We have vital military dollars going to strategic projects that are of vital national security. We are the state that invented and tested the atomic bomb. And so we don't want the president violating separation of powers simply by sweeping away. Vital New Mexico dollars. That's going to military strategy. Just so he can go and build an immigration project like this wall. And the president president has been preparing for this. We know that he even said, so as he was announcing the emergency declaration, let me play this for you. We will have a national emergency. And we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the ninth circuit, even though it shouldn't be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling. And then we'll get into the bad ruling, and then will end up in the supreme court, and hopefully, we'll get a fair shake, and we'll win in the supreme court just like the ban. They sued us in the ninth circuit, and we lost. And then we lost in the appellate division. And then we went to the supreme court, and we won. With that. Do you already intimate that this is going to end up before the supreme court? Will I do quite simply because it's unconstitutional article one is clearly the power of the purse resides with the congress. But article two requires the president to act like a commander in chief and part of that is not misusing the declaration of emergency. And so I'm confident even on the facts he has to be loyal to commander in chief and only use the declaration of emergency. When factually we have the kind of terrorist attacks like nine eleven or the natural disasters. Like, we experienced Katrina. You're simply not allowed even as the president to violate the separation of powers, he should be a loyal and committed commander and chief it's been a bit of a lot of discussion about this that this the president's comment on Friday when he said quote that he didn't need to do this. He just wanted to get the wall done faster is that part of your lawsuit. It is because for instance, where he sweeping funds. I think is going to be very persuasive with the courts just because he has a project that he couldn't reconcile with the congress. He does not have the ability to exaggerate an emergency just so he can sweep vital dollars. That are going to key military projects key vital, drug interdiction strategies, especially like states, like New Mexico. We have one hundred miles over one hundred miles of border, and you will rely heavily on these federal dollars. That's an interesting point. Because if you look at how the travel ban played out in court, the president said all sorts of things that were used in court against him. But in the end, the supreme court allowed the three point zero version of the travel ban to go into into effect despite the things that he said, so how is it going to be any different this time? When you have the president saying something that seems to go against the case that he's trying to make. But it. Didn't matter in court before. That's a great point. But in this case he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. So clearly he's saying that they have an immigration emergency. Therefore, they need the wall. But in the travel ban just like in this case he will have great deference. I'm not arguing that he does not have the authority to issue a declaration of emergency. What I'm arguing that you cannot allow to abuse the declaration of emergency simply to swipe funds that are already appropriated by congress for national defense. And I think that the court will be persuaded by the fact that he's stealing department of defense dollars for an immigration purpose. Mr. attorney general thank you so much for coming in joining this lawsuit to be filed by the close of business today. We'll see where this goes next. Thank you so much. Thank you out front breath. Next seven Senator Amy klobuchar are hoping to stand out in two thousand twenty by selling her mid western values. There wasn't a lot of campaigning in Wisconsin. In two thousand sixteen with me that changes will it work plus COPA char Clova jar and the other twenty twenty candidates ripping into President Trump tonight. But they're not the only ones talking tough. Hey, your confidence is important and sometimes one change can make all the difference hair. Club knows this and they're inviting you to become part of the hair club family to see how getting the most out of your hair can change your life. They understand the emotions you're feeling and know the questions you have hair club is the leader in total hair solutions with a legacy of success for over forty years. See for yourself, just how powerful great hair can be. You know, men struggle with hair loss and hair club is a solution. Go to hair club dot com slash T. P N today for a free hair analysis and a free take home hairc-haircut all valued at over three hundred dollars. That's hair club dot com slash teepee. N for a free hair analysis and free haircare kit hair club dot com slash teepee, N experience, your hair and your life at its best only with hair club. I'm certain you'll love the club. Looking at live pictures right now out of New Hampshire less than three hours away from CNN exclusive town hall with twenty twenty democratic presidential candidate Senator Amy klobuchar hosted by Don lemon out front now. Former Clinton White House aide, Keith boykin and Mark ladder. Former special assistant to President Trump and a member of Trump's reelect advisory board. It is great to see you both on this town hall evening, Keith, what do what do you think? Amy klobuchar needs to try and get out of the town hall tonight. It's a very big opportunity for any candidate. What does she need to get out? I think she needs to stand out and communicate with her messages. I think she great kickoff announcement with the snowstorm. Thanks blizzard. No, no fault of hers, a creation of hers. But it was a good start it distinguished from the other candidates, even only visually optically. And now she's got to do that in the way the medically or programmatic -ly what is her philosophy? What our policy ideas, she wants to put four and why she any different from any of the other fifty thousand candidates who are running. Oh on these early days. That's really what it's about more club ajar is from Minnesota as we to say, she speaks mid western. She has also making it clear repeatedly that she is not going to ignore voters in the midwest. This time around just take a look at this. What I decided to do in our state, and when I do all around the country is I run this campaign is go to places that maybe we didn't focus on enough in the last few years, and that includes a rural areas, I think we're starting in Wisconsin. Because as you remember there wasn't a lot of campaigning in Wisconsin in two thousand sixteen with me that changes. Midwestern states, Wisconsin, Michigan we've gone over this many times, I'm from the midwest. We've never actually sat was sorry keys. Nothing. Anymore? Those states help Trump in two thousand sixteen is with that those routes that ability that focus from club chart, you think some ways she could be more of a threat to Trump then any of the front runner candidates from the coast right now, you have to you have to ask yourself, though, is that she endorsed a green new deal. So you're gonna go to the mid west with a war on cows. That'll so really well in Wisconsin, you're going to go to the mid west with a war on automobile manufacturing not also going to sell well in the mid west these the kinds of policies that they're embracing early on. And that's just not going to sell in places in the midwest. And places at the president it was she she has won election in the midwest think she knows a little bit more about what's going to sell and what's not going to sell and would one in miss Michigan with ten thousand seven hundred votes that determine the election day twenty two thousand votes in Wisconsin, forty four thousand Pennsylvania, but for those three stays Trump wouldn't be the president sage and not. Mention the electoral count would help them win as well. So I think that the Democrats have the messes that's active in terms of reaching midwestern voters in terms of reaching people in that section of the country. It just had to be able to communicate more effectively in twenty twenty. They did twenty sixteen and by the way, I didn't let her little swipe at Hillary Clinton. I thought that was unnecessary. I think you probably going to get a little bit more. That's you might wanna just get ready for that. But my question, do you think midwestern maker a more formidable challenger Trump, then those how if you wanna call bigger names because half senators all of the same name from the coast. There might be they'll probably give them a little bit more of a look. But I think it's at the end of the day. It's gonna be the policies that they talk about. And I think that's where all of the democrat candidates that we've seen so far going to struggle, especially in the industrial midwest where where they were they were basically saying your jobs aren't coming back, and it will take a magic wand. Those jobs are coming back now under President Trump's. Point three million jobs largest manufacturing group. It's years. Twenty years. From the mid west from our state the industrial midwest booted he is running for the democratic nomination as well. And he I would say tells a different story on that front part of the reality too is I don't want to relitigate this. But down Trump came in office saying that the economy was going down the tubes. When when Barack Obama was president. And then as soon as he took off his he took credit for all the things that bomb had already done in Clayton, the mess his own, and they're actually more. First second of all there are more jobs created in the Obama administration Cimabue time before before coming session in the past two years before he took off his before Trump took office in the two years after Trump to office. And if you wanna talk about the recession, we're losing eight hundred thousand jobs month when a bomb attack office left us. Pointing point. Twenty twenty and not the lies that the president President Trump told about the statue. You can actually look at them. Searches regular basis. I'd like you because you're. Election where the economy's is still going to be front and center. Not only be truth tellers, but also be lip-readers. I'm going to play for you. Joe Biden meeting with your minium president. And he's asked the question, apparently, everyone is asking and we're not we're not playing with the audio. Just listen to this. Most people think they're said, I think I may when asked if he was going to run so is Biden in of been so I know for a long time less a no, I still think no he's looked. This is the candidates really want to subject himself himself. He's run twice before. I don't see any real advantage from do this, quite honestly, I say, no, Mark. I'm not a mind reader a liberator. Joying the he's enjoying teasing people. And in the end he may play kingmaker. I agree with you on that we can agree on that alma gas. I'm gonna fall. Do not miss that CNN townhall tonight. Amy Clova char taking to the stage with CNN's, Don lemon. That begins tonight at ten eastern out front press next are some freshmen Democrats seizing the agenda in Washington and beyond. Not get here by being weak by being wallflowers by waiting are turn. And President Trump still building out hope for the Nobel peace price. Tired of spending hundreds of dollars for prescription glasses. Our friends at Xeni optical, offering huge variety of high quality stylish frames and state of the art optics starting at just six ninety five. You can get multiple frames with this great pricing for less than one pair. Elsewhere start building your eyewear wardrobe from the comfort of your own home at Xeni dot com. With the latest trends in eyewear available in hundreds of frame styles and materials there isn't a better way to change it up for every season. Plus Xeni offers prescription sunglasses at incredible prices visits. Any today at Xeni dot com slash CNN. That's Z E N I dot com slash CNN. President's day is the time to reflect on some of the nation's oldest political leaders, perhaps the newest ones who are storming Capitol Hill and driving the agenda. Sons are up front. On Capitol Hill, the freshmen are flipping the script. I am so incredibly excited cutting through the noise a lot of this around. Here's white noise. Commandeering the conversation and in many ways now driving the agenda among those leading in pushing the agenda congresswoman Alexandria Ikaz. Yo Cortez breaking free of the formulaic approach most lawmakers, and it's already super legal as we've seen for me to be a pretty bad guy. So it's even easier for the president of the United States to be when I would assume that's right and her green new deal resolution and only prompting quick Capitol Hill movement, we are in this together, but becoming something of a litmus test for twenty twenty Democrats it helps that we come in. And we don't we don't have any preconceived notions about what we should be doing. And and following the rules congresswoman Ilhan, Omar to is creating vire. Will moments becoming one of the most focal voices of the new class. I felt understand why members of this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful. If I could respond to that wasn't a question on that was not that was not a question that was why was served the right of the my time and congresswoman Lucy MacBeth who lost her son, Jordan Davis to gun violence leading the House Judiciary committee advance its first gun control legislation in years. It was very bitter sweet because I've been able to do something achieve something. That's really profound really makes a difference for people like my son. Even though I wasn't able to save him. I think each and every one of us, and so many different ways is making our Mark in just two short months. These women along with the rest of the diverse. Young new class are drawing strength from their record steady numbers. We did not get here by being weak by being wallflowers by waiting are turn making it clear. They're doing things their own way. There is so much courage. But there's also rawness and real nece. I think that's the difference. Is you're feeling that connection because these are people that are speaking differently and talking about issues differently. The waves they've made so far the river forcetruth. And we're trying to work with them. Not always sitting well with leadership. That's the word. It's an environment viral viral who have had to manage the growing power of this freshman class. Welcome to the Democratic Party. We are not a rubber stamp for anybody. The members come they bring their enthusiasms their priorities, we welcomed that. And they're not programs of they are spontaneous prepared, and I'm proud of them. Now, the same time speaker Pelosi was also asked if these new members have an outsized influence and she said point blank in. No one new member. Quipping back to me telling me that Pelosi noser math here in the math is very clear that leadership needs us freshman to get their legislative priorities through and it's also worth remembering that we've seen this sort of dynamic before think back to twenty ten the tea party when they forced their leaders, of course, Republicans in this case in a new direction as well. Thank you coming up next, President Trump nominated for the Nobel peace prize or not. Remember to create an ad like this one visit pure winning dot com slash CNN. Here is Jeanie MOS. Remember, the famous I roll the one that went viral after nineteen second handshake. Well, now, it's Japanese Prime minister Ave himself, who's eliciting I rolls after President Trump spoke of a letter of the Japanese leader wrote nominating Trump that he sent to the people who give out a thing called the Nobel price. Here's the most beautiful five letter five page letter. But he's a beautiful five page letter. Justice beautiful would have to ask someone divide it one of Japan's biggest newspapers saw he Shimbun reported the nomination came at the behest of Washington and inform over quest when the prime minister was asked in parliament, if he had nominated President Trump to the Nobel prize answer, I'm not saying that it is not the fact citing the Nobel committee's policy of not confirming nominees until fifty years of past read one tweet. Shinzo obey should get the Nobel prize in his ING cartoonist. Ed hall tweeted, giving Donald Trump Nobel peace prize would be like giving Jeffrey Dahmer Michelin star. But chanting Trump rally goers were hungry for a prize mainly due to the president's efforts to denuclearize North Korea. They think the last US president to get one didn't deserve it the Nobel peace prize. Really, what was that for to be honest? I still don't know. But Trump critics cure chances of winning. We didn't say Nobel prize. We said no bail surprise. Dana Carvey has already imagine Trump's Nobel acceptance up there. I love I love the Nobel, Ian. Trump seems to think it's a noble calling calling for himself to win the Nobel gino's CNN New York. Thanks for joining us as C three sixty starts now. Hey, Sekou Smith here from the hang time podcast. Join me and my main man John's humid every week as we break down, the latest, NBA, news and storylines with. Yes. From around the league, we should've subscribe to NBA hang time on apple podcast Spotify. An NBA dot com slash podcast for new episodes every Monday and Thursday this season.

president President Trump McCabe McCain Rosenstein Attorney White House United States Andrew McCabe Kate Baldwin deputy attorney general Roger stone Justice department President Obama James trustee Paul Manafort Rosenstein Joe Biden congress CNN John dean
Stone Coldish Sentencing

Skullduggery

57:35 min | 1 year ago

Stone Coldish Sentencing

"A Michael ISIKOFF chief correspondent for Yahoo News. And I'm Dan Kleinman editor in chief of Yahoo News and a quick reminder that you can follow us at skulduggery pod and by the way. If you've got any questions thoughts ideas you wanNA share tweet right out us now. Let's get on with the show. The judge was not pleased at long awaited sentencing hearing for Roger Stone. Us Judge Amy. Berman Jackson could barely contain her annoyance with stone himself. And with the Department of Justice over its unorthodox handling of the case I recommending a tough seven to nine year sentence for stone and then pulling it in an apparent attempt to soften the blow. For one of the president's fiercest political allies a move that prompted four prosecutors to withdraw from the case stone. She declared was not prosecuted for standing up for the president. He was prosecuted for covering up for the president. As for the Justice Department. She drilled the new assistant. Us Attorney in charge of the case to explain the department's reversal and got no clear answers. In the end she set in stone to a sentence of three years and four months less than the original prosecutors wanted but still a stiff sentence for the self style dirty trickster. It was for the time being an affirmation that the rule of law still holds in Donald Trump's America. But for how long we'll discuss with donayre a former deputy attorney general. Who's calling on Bill Bar to resign? Amil talk to our colleague Hunter Walker. Who is on the ground in Las Vegas for this week's Nevada caucus all on this episode of skulduggery because people have gotta know whether or not their president's across well I'm not a crop I told the American people I did not trade arms. Hostile my heart to my best intentions. Still tell me. That's true but the facts and the evidence filming it is not. I did not have sexual relations with them. There will be no lies. We will honor the American people with the truth and nothing else GLOB chief. Investigative correspondent for Yahoo News Antigen cliven editor in chief of us. Well quite a few days quite a week for the Department of Justice. Fair to say this is a Justice Department in crisis more than two thousand former federal prosecutors have called on Bill Bar to resign for federal prosecutors. Who are on. The Roger Stone case withdrew one quitting department entirely and I just came back from the Roger. Stone's sentencing hearing which was Quite an extraordinary event event a very irritated annoyed judge amy. Berman Jackson annoyed at both the conduct of Roger Stone but also the conduct of the Justice Department itself and it's back and forth on the sentencing recommendation for stone. You know it's weird at the thing that is you know as follow as I'm down here in Miami actually completely captivated by this and obsessed with it so in following the sentencing along on twitter and I guess reporters now can tweet from the courtroom. Because I'm seeing stuff unfold. You gotta you gotTa Watch from the Press Room. If you're actually in the courtroom or even the overflow courtroom which was in cannot enter if your iphone or laptop is on those people who are out in the overflow room watching their tweeting and so I can follow it along in real time and the thing that was striking to me is so the the judge is dressing down the Justice Department for its conduct and and people are tweeting. Drugs is really angry here. at predicting the stone is going to get a very very harsh sentences and he did get a sentence three to four three and a half years is a lot of times but. I think the speculation was that he might get closer to the seven or nine that the Justice Department prosecutors hitter had originally asked for F. At the end of the day he probably got pretty much. What the judge was going to give him in. The first place sat three and a half years forty forty months and it cut me thinking that this kind of a pattern in the trump administration that for all of the attempts to be corrupt and for all of the chaos at some level. Nothing really happens You know but on the other hand over the longer term this stuff is corrosive and it does undermine our institutions and the rule of law and it is really serious stuff so it must have been very strange to be in that courtroom was very strange and frankly I was surprised when the judge finally gave the sentence of forty months three years and four months. Yeah I was Took a little wager with Pete Williams who was They're sitting a few from me and he thought it was going to be three. I said five and I said I thought it was GONNA be five because Jackson was clearly pissed. And if you want to know how pissed she was she remember a lot of this revolves around the witness tampering of Randy Credit Co and the threats to take away his dog bianca former guest on skulduggery. I should remind you know his threats to him and she actually reads out the full unexpurgated texts and emails. That stone was sending to Credito incl- capping with the words which she reads out. Prepare to die cock sucker now. I've never heard a federal judge. Use The word Cock sucker in a courtroom before But I took that as Her effort to emphasize stones conduct. So that was that was pretty striking. And then they look. Let's look we gotta talk about the fallout from all all of this and particularly doors conduct in going in there and intervening in the of Roger Stone and then that extraordinary interview. That bar gave to our colleague pure Coniston. Abc News in which she said that these tweets from trump attacking the justice department are making it impossible for him to do his job now. I note that one of the things I saw while the sensing was going on was that the president tweeted and he tweeted about the fact. How unfair it was that. The Justice Department while they're going after Roger Stone have not prosecuted James Komi or McCabe and so this is exactly the kind of tweet that bill bar has said has made his job impossible to do. The implication of those statements to Pierre. Thomas was that if it happened again he would have to resign. He was drawing a line in the sand and now it has happened not once but multiple times and I've talked to people who are close to barge friends of Bar. They think that he is not going to have a choice but to resign because not doing so makes him look incredibly weak and seques and so. I'm not in the predictions business here. I'm a reporter but I think this has got to be something that bars thinking about. And in fact the Washington Post reported that he is contemplated. Resigning yeah look once. I thought that wants bar set it up because I think we know enough about DONALD TRUMP. To know he is incorrigible. And there's no way he's GonNa stop tweeting. This is this is what he does. This is ingrained in him. Nobody is GonNa tell him what to do. He's the president and bar is the underlying. So I think bar is in an impossible situation. And we're going to discuss this with don air in a moment on air being a former deputy attorney general who resigned himself during the tenure of president. George H W Bush. Dick Thornburg was the attorney general at the time and bar cannot. I don't think he can survive given the standard he set saying the president has to stop these tweets. The question is and will ask this of of of Donayre. What happens after that? We've seen the kind of appointments. That trump is now making with the extraordinary one of Richard Grenell. As acting director of national intelligence somebody was no real qualifications other than his loyalty and fealty to Donald Trump one can only imagine who would end up running the Justice Department. Well you may WanNa look at the cast of characters who have been commentators legal commentators on. Fox's maybe it'll be judge Napolitano Napolitano broke with trump on impeachment and actually was supporting impeachment. So low him out so I think we're talking judge Jean Perrot right there. You go all right last night. I WANNA say on Dr here We've talked a lot about on this podcast because we knew him well back in the day and maybe he doesn't care about this that I think it's too late for him to resign. Sort of in principle to protect his his His his reputation. I think about even putting aside how we handle the Muller report because I know that Complicated and we don't necessarily agree with all of the criticism on that but if you look at the. Linea things that he has done recently you know starting with I think the most egregious which would have been intervening in the politically sensitive case at the sentencing level Here I'm talking about rights. Roger Stone case where the guidelines sensing are pretty clear. You know a sentence that was signed off on by the US attorney by the deadly attorney general investor pretty severe kind of breach then on the germ investigation into the origins of the Russian. Which you know maybe understandable given questions surrounding the FIS applications at so on and so forth. But you know he's flying around personally with Durham investigating it himself over here. It is the attorney general acting like he's a line prosecutors could. That's another one then. You have bar appointing these trusted prosecutors. Us Journey from from St Louis to look into other politically sensitive cases where they're already guilty pleas that would be the flynn case. What's HE GONNA do? Appeal the conviction on the defense side. I mean it's crazy and then the final thing I want to say to be in some ways. It's the most bizarre is the appointment of A. Us Attorney in Pittsburgh for some reason. I don't know why Pittsburgh who is this as a kind of special channel for Rudy Giuliani to pass along his conspiracy theories about Ukraine. This is known as the intake process. The like who is this guy and why does Rudy Giuliani get a special especial channel? Is the lawyer for the president. And he's carrying his political. You know water. So it's not that complicated. Look I don't disagree with your critique but I do remain fixated on you know my God. What would come after bar? You know we saw who came. After Jeff sessions whittaker whitaker You know one of the more bizarre choices to be Acting Attorney General and You know whether trump can find somebody along those lines who would have any credibility at all. Pardon Michael Cohen and install him as attorney general. I look there are lots of lots of buzz abilities air but look we are also going to talk to our colleague. Hunter Walker in this episode about Events in Nevada after that wild debate last night. In which Michael Bloomberg got pummeled. I think it was pretty striking to anybody watching it. That Bloomberg did not have any real defenses to offer to What he was being criticized for on the NDA's for sexual harassment. Or stop and Frisk and you know we all thought but Bloomberg was the guy to watch because of this ton of money spending and then you know man after last night. I don't know that I think is a classic case where you know in some ways. Bloomberg was hurt by all the money he has because he could go out. There spent two hundred and fifty million dollars on the airwaves. See his poll numbers. Go GO UP. And they shot up. I mean they really did so when he was like you know number two nationally or something and not subjected sell to any actual scrutiny. Not Doing any media any media interviews not going on the Sunday shows and so he comes into this debate not having really debated since two thousand nine not wasn't a great debater. Begin with and he. Is this like bubble waiting to burst and that is exactly what happened yesterday and I. It's going to be hard for him to come back from it. We'll see maybe another five hundred million dollars will will do it but I have my down and I should point out for the record that as of this day all them are ducking interviews on skulduggery. So we challenge any of them to have the courage to come on and talk. We've got invitations out. And of course we will let you know but we got a lot to talk about today. So let's get on with it. We are now joined by a former deputy attorney general somebody who Collide men and I covered many many years ago during his days at the Justice Department. Don Air Don welcome to skulduggery. Thank you glad to be here. So you've ruffled some feathers of late by writing some really hard hitting pieces in the Atlantic. Most recently one that says Bill Barr who actually succeeded. You as deputy attorney. General during the administration of President George H W Bush should resign. Tell US why well. I think. The recent developments with regard to the sentencing. Intrusions are the thing that I've got a lot of people upset but the reasons relate to his fundamental views with regard to the powers that the president should have and their views it. He's had for a very long time. I think it's clear. He had them back in the eighties when he was at. Oh well see. And they are embodied in some of the opinions he wrote back then and I was aware of them generally speaking at the time but he was at and then ultimately was attorney general under George H W Bush and the market for pushing the envelope too hard on creating an autocratic president which I think perhaps bill has always wanted to do wasn't real strong with George H W Bush. He wasn't the kind of person who wanted to be kind of an autocrat. And with powers that are essentially unchecked. And so what's going on in the last year and a half and I say year and a half because if I think you the most obvious place to start the modern phase of this is the memo that he wrote in June of two thousand eighteen when he was either applying for or just wanted to make his views familiar to people. Considering who the next attorney general would be because he wrote a nineteen page memo. That was focused on essentially the impropriety of the more or less the entire Muller investigation but specifically laid out bars views on the powers that the executive should have in the incongruity between those powers and some of the things that were being considered as possible subjects crime activities subject to investigation and so specifically in that memo. He said some amazing things about the president. He said the president is the executive branch is in Italics and he said an essence that the power to oversee the executive branch includes the power to oversee to oversee the Justice Department and its indivisible and there's no way that conceptually constitutionally you can say that the president has any limit on that power so he plainly has the power according to Mr Bar in that memo to oversee criminal activities which to degree. I would agree. He does but then he went on to say any has the power to oversee even an investigation of himself and two terminated and none of that can be improper because he is constitutionally given the power to do that. And so you have in that idea really. It's it's exact same idea that the president himself has been saying recently including a day before yesterday. I saw him say at that. He can do anything he wants. As far as cases he can intrude. He hasn't done it he said but he can do it if he wants to. And that's just bill bars vision of the power of the president of some might say don that look that memo was well known to the Senate when bar came up for confirmation and he was confirmed. So he yeah. These are not hidden or concealed views. That he has Fell on him. Neil Kickoff testified about the memo very effectively. I told the whole story. And it was right out there for everyone to see and and he was confirmed anyway. And you know I why that happened. Exactly I think one can speculate about. I think he had been attorney general before under George H W Bush. George H W Bush. Didn't push the lion on being an autocrat. So people said jeeze maybe he seems to be an institutional so he had the okay. Maybe one of the reasons that The alarm bells didn't go off as much when he was nominated and went through. The confirmation process is because people made a distinction between his ideology as legal beliefs. And whether or not he was going to in some way undermine the rule of law and be overtly political and how he conducted himself as Attorney General. And that's why I wanted to ask you about because the outrage out there about bar seems less of most people's reaction is less about his maximalist. Views of presidential power has more to do with this idea that he has become the president's personal attorney as opposed to the People's attorney and that he is acting politically in ways that are dangerous by subverting the rule of law. How do you think of those two issues? Are they related in your mind or are they distinct and is it? Would it be fair to say that? He is principled but his is used on. Presidential Power and executive authority are dangerous for the democracy. Well I think I think both things are true. Probably I think bill bar probably and I don't I don't claim any great insight because I've not spent much time in the forty years. I've known him talking with him so I am not sure. I understand quite what he's thinking but I think he has had these views a very long time long before ever had any dealings with Donald Trump. And I mean my my best hunch which is just a guess is that he saw the opportunity of someone who pretty transparently wanted to be an all-powerful president and wanted to be able to do anything he wanted to. As a potential real opportunity to advance his own beliefs about the way the government should be structured. And so I think the two things really come together in the current reality that we're now looking at and so you find him doing and saying things that are personally advantageous to donald trump and that seems quite unseemly. When you're you're using those powers in order to try to get a better deal for she for your friends in a criminal case and that sort of thing but but I think for Barr. It's all part of a vision That he's had a long time. Which is that's the way the president should operate. So I feel personally and what I tried to say in this article I wrote was that it's now come to the point where the number of steps that he has taken and with some modicum of success unfortunately to interfere in various ways which both are designed to unleash. Donald Trump and give him powers to keep him free of limitations. And unleash a categorical up set of powers for the president. Whoever he may be and we're now seeing that reality coming forward and if somebody doesn't do something pretty soon we're going to be in a very difficult spot when you say if somebody doesn't do something pretty soon I mean you've called on him to resign but you've also said that he doesn't resign. He ought to be impeached. Well I have and I think the first the first line of Defense has got to be the resignation. And I think we're seeing a lot of things going on here that you know some people say oh. We won't resign in fact that letter that came out the two twenty two hundred or so former. Doj PEOPLE. The letter says we call on you to resign. But since we don't think you will then. They went on and talked about what the people in the department needed to do. I'm not quite so ready to say I. I don't think you will. I don't know if he will or won't but it seems to me he should. He deserves to. He's misbehave badly. And I think I've documented. I think others have documented and I think he does need to resign and I think the first thing we need to be talking about is not thinking up ways that he could be impeach it needs its people need to stand up and be counted. He may have to do so anyway. Because he's he's laid down a marker he did in that interview with Pierre Thomas at ABC last week. He said it's impossible for me to do my job with the president continuing to tweet about cases involving the Justice Department and friends or political enemies of the president. Well that clearly did not affect president trump says tweets so in one sense bar may have painted himself into a corner here right where he may have no choice. Maybe so yeah that's possible. I think that good thing though. Sure that marker and showed that despite the harsh words you wrote that he actually does have a line in the sand. Well that he does not believe Should be crawl. I think the line in the sand. He has that he's articulated. Is nothing other than line in the sand? That says you're making it very difficult for me to essentially try to run the powers of the Justice Department and away. They let you do anything you want to. Because you're claiming credit for it. You're saying you want me to do it. You're making it unseemly and difficult to do it. Nothing he said not. A word that's been said is A. We made a mistake. We shouldn't be doing this. This is wrong. We're going to pull back. We're going to do differently. The only thing I've heard is today at the sentencing well at the sentencing hearing Roger Stone today the assistant. Us Attorney who has been placed in now in charge of the case after the four prosecutors. Who were in charge of the case withdrew after their sentencing memo was withdrawn clearly under orders from Maine justice bars. Office the new assistant. Us Attorney actually reverse the Justice Department's position yet again and supported an enhancement for the sentencing of Roger Stone which seemed to be an indication that you know maybe all the public flack has had an impact. What do you make of the reversal? You know I I don't I don't know what to make of it I I. It was better than not doing it. I I think what you have to do. Really though is not get caught up in the specifics of a particular momentary event. You GotTa look at the Big Picture and when you look at the big picture. The big picture being Bill Barr from the time he took over as attorney general a year ago. The big picture is a is a consistent pattern. I'll say it's actually. It wasn't the first thing but but starting certainly with his whitewashing of the Muller report and announcing that there really wasn't sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice in there. Well obviously when it came out Three weeks later at Avi there obviously was you know you have him This his behavior which is so unconventional for attorney general when the Inspector General announced the report from his investigation of the FBI investigation of Russian interference in December bar and indeed his his sidekick Mr Durham in Connecticut. Both said individually that they disagreed with the finding which was that the thing had been properly originated properly overseeing and then in between there's all of these things he's Oh elsie opinions in various ways. The Department has supported repeatedly supported the stonewalling of Congress's efforts to get information. I could go through five. Or six of those and also supporting and litigating vigorously his emergency declaration which is really just a way of trying to nullify the appropriation clause of the Constitution. Which says the House has to originate appropriations of money and Congress has to appropriate money to spend it in the president. Says I want to spend it on a border wall. We never could get it appropriated congress. We tried and tried. Congress said no he even said. I don't even really have an emergency but I just WanNa move faster and yet the bars justice department is in fact litigating these cases seriously when El Paso and other cities are are saying. Don't do this. You don't have any power so lots and lots of things there's more we can talk. Let me play devil's advocate here a little bit. You mentioned bars Spinning of the Muller Report. In fact the the full muller report was released with minimal redaction so we all saw what Muller's conclusions were. Andrew McCabe was not prosecuted. Jim Komi was not prosecuted despite criminal referrals from the Inspector General and Roger Stone today was told he's going to federal prison for three years and four months not an insubstantial sentence so when and no political enemies of the president have been prosecuted by the Bar Justice Department. So some might say you know your your your hand. Wringing is a bit overwrought. Well I think all of those things are individual situations which might have been worse. But I think what you have to look at is the pattern of what we do know and the pattern of what has gone on and you know the idea that that Mr McCabe was investigated for two years for conduct that or at least there was a pending investigation so it was a criminal referral from the Inspector General had been appointed by President Obama. That's not a political prosecution for for the prosecution at all for conduct that that basically the conduct of that sort that was being wired into is not the sort of thing that is virtually ever prosecuted and and the idea that it was let to sit and fester for two years is is something on its own. But I don't want to go into quibbling about all of this. The claim is not that everything they've done was as bad as it could conceivably be. The point is that there are repeated multiple over and over again incidence of conduct. That are indefensible. It was indefensible to take them all a report and read it and without telling anyone what the facts were characterize it as lacking evidence that adequate to support allegations of obstruction. When you read it is full of allegations of obstruction. That are very powerfully documented. Many many many things that were done that would support a case. A thousand or more prosecutors wrote a letter saying that Muller even protested about the characterization is not fully capturing their the essence of what they were doing. You know the report. It's incredible that I guess what I want when I want to take a step back and just say I won't go on at great length about it. One of the really distressing things for people who have worked in the Justice Department is and if you've been around as long as I have been around long enough to know about Watergate and what occurred in Watergate and what occurred after Watergate and the reforms that came after Watergate that Edward Levy came in as attorney general and put in place and the way they viewed the departments work the overarching focus in his swearing in address and more generally just in their work was restoring trust in government restoring trust in the Justice Department and the key element of that. According to him in his own words was we had to make people clear that no man where he is. No Man is above the law and we are a government of laws and not men and we can't have people and you. You've not only can't have people who can individually pull strings and above the law and do whatever they want. You can't allow the public to strongly suspect or have any reasonable grounds to believe that that's going on. And so the great thing about the Justice Department where I worked for about ten years and others worked a lot longer is that we took a lot of pride in that as the way the place operated and people wanted to be fair and they took pride in the fact that it's hard to be fair. It's hard not to make mistakes. It's hard to be careful enough. That people actually believe that you're trying absolutely to do the best thing and to do it right and not be unfair to anyone and now what we've got going on is not only are we not bending over backwards but we are actively engaging in conduct that on. Its face appears biased unreasonable. And everything I talked about is in that category I think. Let me pick up on that because I remember as a young Justice Farben reporter. I guess I was covering you. Among others learning about and relieve the Carol Royse Attorney General and he was a revered figure in the department because he established those helped establish those norms and guardrails. That have been sacrosanct for all these years until more recently. But I guess it points to the kind of conundrum here which is okay so bill. Let's say Bill Bar does resign? What IS DONALD TRUMP GONNA do? He's not GONNA put an ad Levy type in at the Justice Department as Acting Attorney. General he's GonNa install someone who he trusts and who is going to fulfill Richard. Richard will be dual as acting director of Intelligence National Intelligence Attorney General. Well I think so what do you do I hear you? Well I think the important thing I we. There's only so many things that you can deal with the wants and but the thing that I think you have to keep in mind is that there is an unholy alliance now between Donald Trump. Which I won't I won't proceed to characterize him you all have familiar with him And a fellow who is exceedingly smart and has a lifelong devotion and a high level of intelligence about how to achieve what I believe and I don't think I'm alone in. This is a truly nefarious and I use the word un-american goal it is a truly un-american goal to want to have a country that used to be or still is hopefully one where the rule of law prevails and nobody gets to subvert it and want to turn it into one where you've decided that the chief executive needs to essentially be all powerful and as the president has said be able to do anything he wants and bill bar is working to help him do that. My hope is and I. It's not an idle hope and I actually have some optimism about it is that people will continue to speak out. There's a there's a petition. I'm aware of by the citizens for responsibility and ethics in Washington crew the R E W that House I heard today has eighty nine thousand signatures. Saint Bill Bar must resign. There are other things that people have put out an and have in the works. I think people are stepping up. I think one of the things that needs to happen is bar associations and organizations of lawyers in particular who understand the legal system the ABA maybe the American Law Institute people that are institutions that are respected. Need to look at what's happening and say. Hey this is not. Partisan this is all about the rule of law and maybe even former judges groups. You'RE NOT GONNA get current judges. They can't speak out politically. It's it's subverts the entire process but maybe former judges groups but people need to stand up and be counted in the time to do. It is now and we all need to. Because there's our democracy is on the line in my my opinion begun. I'm not sure you answered Dan's question which is and then what? Donald trump is still president. Somebody has to run the Justice Department. I'm getting somebody who you would approve of well. Appointed and nominated and confirmed. Seems Unlikely. So what would follow a bar resignation? What I think would be true. I can't predict who would be nominated But what I think would happen is if he ends up. Resigning essentially because of the uproar. That's coming out in the face of what is now known to have done you know originating. I think the most of the uproar began with the focus on these intrusions into the criminal process in the last ten days. But I think there's maybe a realization and perhaps my article has contributed to what I hope it has that that's actually really bad but it's of a piece with a lot else that he's doing it's not a it's not a separate thing. It's part of the same process of doing what you can to essentially have one person be above the law by navigating not only intruding in the criminal process. Nateing the effects of even-handed a neutral investigations. But also interfering systematically throughout the whole year in the functioning of the constitutional checks and balances the power of Congress to get his tax returns the power of Congress to subpoena information the power of Congress to appropriate money and have it be respected that they didn't appropriate money the different things that they're doing. You know the the refusal or the opinion that when the whistle blower report relating to the Ukraine phone call took place there was it was referred by the I g to the Justice Department and oil see. Wrote an opinion saying it wasn't a matter of urgent concern so it didn't need to be turned over to the hill. I mean it's just a systematic you know I was going to say drip drip drip but it's more like a fire hose of things that they're doing that are systematically designed to prevent our checks and balances from working if he resigns in the face of knowledge that that misconduct is essentially driving him out of office. I don't think the next guy can pull the same stunt. Well it depends on what the basis for his resignation is if he resigns in protest over President Trump's continued tweets at puts it a little different cast on it right. Well it does but I still think the country's capable of learning from what's going on and I'm I'm optimistic. Hoping that they will the more people protest and speak out and understand that they're having their democracy stolen from them the better and that's something that needs to happen now. Don when you were deputy attorney general Bar was I. Think the assistant attorney general in charge of the office of Legal Counsel has Ms Right. Now that is right so so he would have reported to you. Correct Redeem reports attorney Gen Attorneys General. There's a there's a line of reporting if you look at the organization sharp at the reality of it was and I don't know that this is particularly unusual in terms of the functions performed. He did I did not have. I had some dealings with him but very very few very limited so it wouldn't be. It'd be wrong to say that I was his boss in any meaningful way or or that. He reported to me meaning. He actually physically reported to me as coming in and reporting you know and that none of that happened. Did you regard him as a potentially dangerous? Dangerous extremists tip time well. I don't think the dangers that we're now thinking about were similar. Then because you had a president who was George H W Bush and he was a truly and `institutionalised he was truly actually was truly a Republican. He was truly a Republican sense of limited government limited powers. The last thing he wanted to do was concentrate vast arbitrary authority in one person or even in Washington and so that just wasn't where we were headed so the dangers were i. I will say I. I knew what he was thinking about. Annuity was writing. And I wasn't terribly sympathetic toward it but I didn't see it as any kind of payroll of the sort we're now looking at. Because this unholy alliance between bar and trump you got somebody that wants to be the recipient of the powers that bill bar wants him to have and that's a frightening thing another former deputy attorney general George to wilder couve served under bar during his first iteration as attorney general road. A Op Ed in the Washington Post today defending bar and saying look it is not on its face. Improper that political appointees who are responsible ultimately responsible and accountable for what goes on in the Justice Department would want to review what line prosecutors are doing and making sure that their investigations and prosecutions are properly predicated and conducted. A is wrong about that. No not at all in the sense that and then I would say I would hasten to add that that the original recommendation in the stone case and all recommendations in major cases that are reviewed up align things get review process part of what Edward leavy brought in was a review process where nobody goes off half cocked and just as crazy stuff and gets away with it. There's a process of review and that was all gone through and it was gone through before the original memo was filed and what ended up happening. Here was a sort of a very last minute eleventh hour intervention which sadly happened to coincide virtually with the president's tweeting about how unfair it was and all of that relates to something else. Which is that. We're dealing with two different things here. It isn't a question of whether there is literally authority. There is the question of whether it's proper to do it. Within the norms that have developed in one one thing that's become real clear in the forty five years since the Watergate reforms were put in place really became clear pretty much at the time that they were put in place is that in most criminal cases. There is a fairly firm wall between the White House. And what's going on in the criminal case it's a it's a norm is it is it. Is it because the president theoretically lacks any power to supervise it? No it's not he does. He's the head of the executive branch but presidents have been intelligent enough to know that if you want to have the Justice Department and the criminal justice system respected. You leave that space. And that's almost an unexceptionable rule that has been voluntarily adhered to and here here. You have. You're not just transcending that line here with the president interfering but you're going in now to actively intervene at a time. That's very irregular. We put the memo in in ordinary course had been reviewed. And so you're really showing at a minimum VC gross insensitivity to what does it take for the American people to have trust in their government particularly in this area where it's all about the worst things really the government could do to you. They can put you in jail. They can lock you up for a very long time and they better be darn careful the way they handle. Those powers are people are going to be scared and distrustful and here. They're running around conducting themselves in a way that looks very political and if he can do this for his friends if they can intervene for the president's France well then what about his enemies. Some of whom have been fired from their jobs already. And you mentioned Jim Komi before of well they didn't prosecute Jim Comey well. They didn't but not yet. And there are other people who have not been prosecuted yet. Either one of the things. We're waiting on for the shoes to drop. Is this marvelous little investigation. This is another thing that brother Bar and And the Durham investigation. That bars were John. Durham is a career prosecutor. He's been there for years. Eric holder relied on him to do the investigation to the CIA interogations. Do you have any reason to believe he is serving as a political? Patsy of Bill Borrows abandoned his bills as a prosecutor. I don't and I also don't have any reason to think that Rod Rosenstein as a patsy either but what I do know is that when the Justice Department is making decisions in any number of different areas. There are two things that have to come together if you're dealing with a case you're dealing with the facts and finding the facts. Rod Rosenstein worked very hard to protect Bob. Muller's ability to find the facts and that report is an incredible thing and it's full of facts and it's full of incriminating facts with regard to obstruction and the conclusion could be reached that there was no sufficient evidence of obstruction and Rod. Rosenstein could Rod Rosenstein. Could Stand Mall. Bill Bar Conference where that was said and kind of looking like he was a gulag. Yeah resident or something. But the reason why that would be his duty. And the reason why John Durham and I have no question to note no reason to doubt his either patriotism or excellent service to the country. The president on the law side of things the Attorney General as head law enforcement officer is the one who gets to say th- we're looking at the law this way. This is the way we are going to interpret the law here. You got your facts. I'll tell you what the law is. Your duty is to apply the law as I give it to you to those facts and that's a very scary thing. That's the only way I can imagine that anybody could look at the mall report obstruction evidence and say. Oh there's no evidence of obstruction here. Only reason is because under bill in bill bars world in the memo he wrote in in June of twenty eighteen. The president is virtually incapable of committing obstruction because he is the executive branch and he can do anything. He wants. A UNITARY Executive decisely. We haven't even gotten to the subject to President Trump's party which many of which came out in the last few days And I think which falls under the category that you're talking about before something where the President has absolute authority at but maybe would be improper to do under certain circumstances and that may be what Roger Stone is can look forward to. But it's great to have you on the on the show and hear your perspective on all of these subjects and so we thank you for coming off. Slow Duggary will thank you for having me. It's been fun and now on the ground in Las Vegas Nevada Hunter Walker Hunter Welcome back once discovery. Thanks for having me Mike. How're you doing good? You have any money left you know I I I have not gambled yet unless you count winning a large whimsical stuffed gorilla at circus circus. Which Is Truly Vegas Finest Rundown Casino Right? Well I can only imagine what the wagering must've been on the Wednesday night democratic debate and anybody who like was selling Bloomberg short would have made a killing. I would think give me your take. That was quite a quite a slugfest yet. I was feisty actually as you as saying on predicted billy sanders is odds of winning are searching while Mike Roberts are plunging those posted by. Let's explain that. Well let's into that first of all on Bloomberg. I couldn't agree with you more. I mean the guy looked like as out of place as anybody could look seem to have not at all anticipated what his responses were going to be to all the obvious Issues he was GonNa get pummeled on you know. I don't know if you've talked any of the Bloomberg people today but I mean man. They must be in a state of shock. Well so I talked to Howard. Wolfson hers a senior adviser Bloomberg Campaign and a former deputy mayor Bloomberg time in City Hall. Who was the first one in the spin room after the debate sort of you know I can spin so so you know he said that quote unquote weather the storm? He framed it as a debate. Were they knew they were gonNA come under heavy fire. He said quote. We knew we were going to come in the cannons loaded for bear. Everyone's target and Wolfson's literal spin was that you know Bloomberg took all the attacks really well and it was actually the Bloomberg campaign is trying to say that there's only two viable Democrats right now mayor. Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders and he said that you know while Mayor Bloomberg totally kept his cool amid all these attacks it was actually Bernie Sanders. Who had a rough debate and he said when Mike Bloomberg Dare criticized Bernie Sanders? It looked like he was flying through the stage of hymns. Now I mean I think if you look at the headlines and you know if you watch that debate I don't think anyone else. Shares Howard will since Jake on Bloomberg weather the storm the way New Orleans weathered Katrina. I think probably analogy. I can think of but I mean look. It seemed to me that Warren had a really strong performance they're nailing Bloomberg on the NBA's on sexual harassment. I thought that was the signature moment from the debate. The one that will be most memorable and it did not look like Bloomberg had much of an answer for that at all Yeah I I think you're absolutely right it touches on something that you know. It's it touches on something that you were saying before where it just seemed like he was shockingly unprepared and I actually came out of the City Hall Press Corps. I covered mayor Bloomberg's administration for a couple of years. I believe that prior to last night. I'm actually the for the last person who asked him directly and personally about the allegations of sexism harassment of his company. When I did that mayoral press conference. He responded by saying it was an outrage for me to ask that question on yelling so I guess my for you to ask him about allegations of sexual harassment at is coming and specifically sexist comments. He's alleged to have me also he yelled at me and said that was a quote unquote outrage by that measure. You handled senator warrants questioning a lot better but yeah I mean you know these allegations I bring up my own mustard with it just to point out that no. It's been a decade that this stuff has been out there in the ether. They had to know it was gonNA come up and I just don't think the response of referring to these. Nda's that block women from discussing allegations as quote unquote. Consensual is really a sharper. Well-thought-out response and then when Howard Wolfson went into the spin room you know he got questions about all this stuff and he also got questions for me about a few things that member would settle on stage and I was very struck by the answers because they didn't seem to factually add up one of them. The other big exchange apart from the sexism thing was when Bloomberg dot questioned on stop and Frisk. Now this is the policy that was one of those controversial things have been in his administration where minorities were disproportionately targeted to be stopped and searched by the points. It ended up getting stopped by a court order. Twenty Thirteen Bloomberg's last year in office. A federal judge ruled it unconstitutional fired a lunch and his presidential campaign. Bloomberg actually apologized for stop and Frisk but on stage. You Know He. He leaned on his own apology but he also claimed that you know when he quote unquote personally discovered that there were too many stops were reduced. And that's just not true as I just was saying. It was ordered by federal judge for this policy to end so. I actually pressed Howard Wolfson on the spin room and Wolfson said quote in the last year of the mayoralty. We trout stops by ninety five percent. That was before the court ordered. Not after and that's just not true. I mean data from the New York Civil Liberties Union shows the number of stocks reduced. Only by about sixty four percents in twenty thirteen. And of course that's as the court case was ongoing. This is a court case where the Bloomberg Administration thought for the policy and Bloomberg actually initially angrily vowed to appeal the order ending stop and Frisk so their whole narrative about. It's just doesn't stand up to the little bit of fact checking one about Biden's claim that it was Obama Administration monitors that forced the change in stop and Frisk. You know. That's a little more nebulous. It it is. Broadly true that it is federal intervention. That forced that change. One can debate sort of you know how the Obama monitors have interacted with the court there. But you know it was definitely federal intervention and it certainly wasn't a personal decision from Bloomberg the other thing that that Bloomberg said on stage that struck me is another one of the big attacks against him comes from Bernie Sanders and others who argue. He's using his billion dollar personal fortune to buy the election and what Bloomberg said when he was questioned about progressives who stay billionaires shouldn't even exist is he said quote all I know is. I've been very lucky. Made a lot of money and I'm giving it all away to make this country back now. He's given away over ten billion dollars over the years but his net worth an estimated sixty billion and in spite of that philanthropy. It's only been Raisa. So that notion that he's giving it all away is just. It's not remotely true. That ten billion includes political giving that obviously zone self interest and he's backing his own campaign here so crystals. Wolfson about that. He described as a quote. Unquote Quibble. He said. I don't know if you want to quibble with the fact that the guy's given away billions of dollars year. You're welcome but you know it's bizarre to me that the state standing on stage claiming he's given away all of his money when literally. I've photos of Housing Bermuda. That has a golf course. Almost got he's got a house in Bermuda houses because last night in the debate he seemed to imply that his only residence was the city of New York. Remember there was a back and forth where you know where your houses and he said he was he was attacking Bernie Sanders for having three houses including like most members of Congress residents in his home state and in Washington which is basically a requirement of TATA. Right so where birdhouses. Oh my God he's got a bunch of New York. He actually sort of pioneered a thing that we're seeing. You Know Uber Rich. Do in recent years where he bought multiple townhouses on the upper east side and knock down the walls in the middle to create one mega houseguest but his most controversial properties. This house in Bermuda and it was controversial just because he regularly spent time there while he was the mayor of the city and there was this one famous instance in two thousand and Ten New York sort of snow removal crisis and it came out sort of while the streets were clogged. Rembert was not you know in the war room manning the response he was actually interviewed us in the wake of things. I on earth photos of the per meter house and my favorite feature was a putting green and golf course on the lawn so these guys sitting there saying he's given away all of his money implying he only has one house in New York and he's got a beautiful estate with a golf course. Bermuda can also look on youtube videos of his daughter Georgina showing off the massive equestrian staples that he has bought for her. And you know I. It's it's incredible to know these things and then see him on stage. You know implying is basically a regret. See it okay. Let's just look forward to Nevada caucus on Saturday How does it look right now? I've talked to a lot of people out here. I've been here for a COUPLA days. It seems very clear to me that Bernie Sanders says the strongest ground game. He also has a big program that we're GONNA be writing about on Yahoo that's designed to maximize Mattino outreach. And even though there's a very small Latino population in Iowa there were really encouraging science for his campaign that this program is working so it looks like he's very strong here but of course especially after the debacle in Iowa this is another caucus and there were concerns about this caucus process last time. I had multiple campaigns. Tell me they cannot really predict what's going to happen here on Saturday. In fact the only thing most people are predicting that it's going to be messy in their preppy controversy and confusion around the results. But this gets to something that you were saying. You were hinting at earlier. Which one had a great night? Why would people on the betting markets be saying that Bernie Sanders searching? And I think that right now. We're we're sitting assuming that he hasn't even decent results in Nevada rate he's got all the momentum you know he merely type basically type people in Ireland He won New Hampshire and even though key currently has a one delegate lead all the upcoming skates look terrible for him Show it's starting to really look like on Super Tuesday. Where Bernie is pulling very well in our Texas California if he does well enough in Nevada to keep his momentum going. It seems like that's when he could start to have a pretty big leap particularly against Bloomberg. Who's going to begin with zero delegates when all of the candidates were on the ballot and the first four early states craft thirty to fifty. Well we will have to see because There's still a question of can how much can Bernie sort of break thirty percent Which is I? Think the highest. He's gotten so far and if he doesn't he can still win against the divided field but remain short on the number of delegates which is why he's the one candidate last night. Who said that? The nominations should go to the person who has the most delegates at the time of the convention not who has the majority which that was that was that was one of the most fascinating and important moments if the debate you know we can say that? Bernie Sanders looks to be in the best position right now. He's certainly the front runner within this crowded field. However you know exceeds highly possible. We were talking about this On the episode from New Hampshire you know every year political junkies like say this is GonNa be the time we have a broker convention this time. It really looks like with the field being this crowded with Bloomberg insisting he's GonNa play late. We Really Click reach a situation. Where Bernie might have a plurality? He might be in the League delegate wise but he's short of that out and out delegates majority and that means particularly given Burmese. You know tense relationship with the sort of main line of the party that we really could be seeing some kind of floor fight or you know. This could really just come out that when my appetite for Milwaukee and we will have lots of skulduggery to talk then have fun. Check out the casinos and save your money and We'll talk to you soon. I'll put twenty bucks for you Mike. Okay Take Care Bye. Thanks to former. Deputy Attorney General Von. Air and Yahoos own Hunter Walker for joining us on this episode of skulduggery. Don't forget to subscribe to skulduggery on Apple podcasts. Or wherever you listen to podcasts. And tell us what you think. We've reviewed the latest episode also on Sirius. Xm On the weekend. Check it out on police channel. One twenty four on Saturdays at three PM Eastern time with replays on Sundays at one. I am three PM. Sure to follow us on Social Media Spill buttery pod Dr Soon.

president President Trump Justice Department attorney Roger Stone President George H W Bush Muller deputy attorney general general Bar Bloomberg Us Attorney Michael Bloomberg Nevada Executive Bill Barr donald trump Department of Justice Justice Department reporter President Obama
AP Headline News Nov 08 2018 10:00 (EST)

AP Radio News

03:30 min | 2 years ago

AP Headline News Nov 08 2018 10:00 (EST)

"The. AP radio news. I'm Rita Foley. Laid supreme court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in the hospital after falling and fracturing three ribs AP Washington. Correspondent saga megani? The high court says the eighty five year old Justice fell in her office yesterday evening and was admitted to a hospital early today after feeling discomfort tests showed she broke three ribs and was admitted for treatment Ginsburg broke two ribs and a false six years ago. She's at two boats with cancer and heart surgery in twenty fourteen. We've seen video now of the scene at a crowded dance bar in Thousand Oaks, California as terrified partier 's run from gunman. We got the sound of those gunshots from our MG news in Los Angeles. The shooter killed twelve people and then was found dead inside the bar. This man was there when the shooting started a tall dark figure probably six two six three. And he was. Pointing a handgun over the counter towards the workers that were working there and just started firing sheriff Jeff dean, it was a horrific scene. The when the officers went and the suspect was already dead, but it was a horrific there were eleven victims inside plus a suspect. And then addition my sergeant was killed trying to make entry thirteen people dead in all we're told authorities have identified the gunman. But as yet we do not have his name. He was twenty nine years old and set off a smoke device inside the bar, then used a forty five caliber handgun to kill his victims, the close Georgia governor's race is over says Republican Brian Kemp was declaring victory saying it isn't possible for his challenger to pick up enough uncounted absentee votes to force a runoff. This is AP radio. News attorney gen. Jeff Sessions has been replaced by the president. Now there are questions about what happens to the rush investigation. Rudd Rosenstein, the number two fish oil at the Justice department took control of Robert Muller's investigation into election interference because Jeff Sessions recused himself. President Trump has blessed the probe as a witch hunt and said I could fire everybody right now when I don't wanna stop the president has placed an acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker at the helm of the Justice department instead of elevating Rosenstein, who was up the White House Wednesday. We're adviser Kellyanne Conway was asked about that meeting. He has a deputy attorney general. So he has a lot of business here at the White House. I think he'll be back tomorrow for different meeting no clue on Rosenstein future at the Justice department. Acting AG Whitaker has called for limiting the Russia investigation. Jackie quinn. Washington gases to Seventy-three a gallon down six cents from a week ago. Rita Foley, AP radio news.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg AP Rita Foley gen. Jeff Sessions Justice department Rudd Rosenstein Brian Kemp Kellyanne Conway AP president Jeff dean Matthew Whitaker Thousand Oaks White House Los Angeles President Trump Washington Jackie quinn Washington deputy attorney general
Opinion: Bill Ruckelshaus, Conservationist Who Also Protected The Rule Of Law

Environment: NPR

02:44 min | 1 year ago

Opinion: Bill Ruckelshaus, Conservationist Who Also Protected The Rule Of Law

"The house was a conservationist an Indiana Republican conservative. Who believed in conserving balanced budgets limited government powers constitutional personal checks and balances and clean air and water? Nature provides a free lunch. He said but only if we control our appetites help right Indiana's first I air pollution. Laws is a state. Deputy attorney general in the nineteen sixties and was appointed the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency by President Nixon in one thousand nine hundred seventy I director of the EPA bill rickles house band DDT from US agriculture went after steel and paper companies for water pollution and told major cities to reduce adduced sewage. They sent into water systems. He reminds us how noble public service can be. President Obama. Said when he awarded Mr Ruckus House. The Presidential Chill Medal of freedom in two thousand fifteen and added and our air and water is cleaner and our lives brighter because of him president. Nixon called on Bill Ruckus House again again in one thousand nine hundred seventy three to make deputy attorney general. The Justice Department needed to burnish its image of integrity during the Watergate. Investigation Archibald Cox walks the independent special prosecutor had subpoenaed President Nixon for recordings of conversations. He'd made in the Oval Office as we know now. Nixon had recorded himself Elf authorizing the payment of hush money to cover up criminal conduct in the eventually became known as the Saturday night massacre President Nixon ordered Attorney General. Elliot Richardson to fire the Special Prosecutor Stu. Richardson refused and resigned. President Nixon. Then ordered Bill Ruckus House the next in line to fire archibald trebol Cox Bill Ruckus House had promised to uphold the independence of the independent prosecutor. So when he was ordered by the president to fire the prosecutor for trying to obtain evidence. Bill rickles house didn't make a series of excuses with his own conscience to stay close to power. He refused the president's. Didn't sorter and resigned. When you accept your presidential appointment? You must remind yourself their alliance over which you will not step. He recalled in two thousand twelve in this case. The line was bright and the decision was simple bill. rickles house died this week. At the age of eighty seven a conservative and a conservationist survey Sionist a conserved and protected the rule of law

President Nixon Bill Ruckus House bill rickles president Mr Ruckus House Deputy attorney general prosecutor Indiana Obama Archibald Cox Elliot Richardson Environmental Protection Agenc archibald trebol Justice Department US Oval Office Stu director