Corporations on Damage Control After Cohen Revelations (Audio)

a shady scenario. A T and T paid at least two hundred thousand dollars to affirm established by co and Essential Consultants, which paid the hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels. No Vartis, a major pharmaceutical company, has just admitted that it paid a total of one point two million dollars to Cohen. On ABC's This Week, President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani said that Trump had reimbursed Cohen

through a monthly retainer. Even if it was considered a campaign contribution, it was entirely reimbursed out of personal funds. A company tied to a Russian oligarch also paid half a million dollars to the same firm established by Cohen. Joining me is Bob Bower, White House counsel for President Obama and a professor at n y U Law School. Bob they say, follow the money, and that appears to be what the Special Council is doing. Where on the scale of revelations is this latest news in terms of

damage to Trump and Cohen? Of course, we've had so many revelations and sort of grading them in significance as

a challenge. This is a significant development. It puts Michael Cohen with this account in transactions with the Russian government over the same period, assuming of Russian oligarch, someone with a close tie to President Putin, over the same period that he's receiving reimbursements quote unquote from the President for the Stormy Daniels matter and apparently also, as Mr Giuliani said, quote unquote incidentals. So it opens up a whole host of questions about how that account was used, what the

President understood about the use of that account. It is I think definitely a development of some significance in this case. What's more surprising to me at this point is the payments by A T and T and novartists. A T and T said it paid co and in early seventeen to provide insights into understanding the new administration, and they also wanted guidance on how Trump would respond to its plan to acquire time Warner. According to a person briefed on the matter, what do you make of this arrangement

with Cohen for insights? There are some questions that I think ultimately will be asked, and our understanding of this will depend on the answers about what exactly Michael Kohen was offering and ultimately what he delivered, And that's absent right now from these UH News reports. We could expect

probably more information in the future. Of course, organizations that have interests in public policy very often look for people who can provide sites, and they will frequently look for people who are associated and knowledgeable about public officials for those insights. Obviously, Michael Cohene is not known as a lobbyist or a strategic thinker, only as somebody with a close personal and professional relationship with the president in some

sort of quasi legal representational capacity. And so the question is what did he say he would do and what in fact did he do? And those are questions um quite frankly, like the question about the purposes of the Russian oligarch payments that are going to eventually be asked and answered because they said in their statement that he

did no legal or lobbying work for them. So what really does that leave I suppose the reference to insights suggests that they were trying to understand Donald Trump's approach to particular public policy questions that they were interested in. That's the most that I can gather from the press reports so far. So we seem to be learning over and over again how far the Mueller investigation has gone already Because he was talking to nov artists or his

his investigators were last November. So are we seeing a bigger picture of why this investigation is so important? Investigation is very important. Just go back. I think we can all remember the letter of appointment issued by a Deputy

Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. This inquiry had bottom. The Special Council's inquiry is about an extraordinary set of concerns about Russian uh interference in the US election and the possible collusion of a major party presidential candidate with that for a national activity here in the United States in our political process. So at all times, this investigation, in the first framing has been one of exceptional public importance. Now, as these threads of evidence develop, we may find that

there are other issues comparable and significance to develop. But I think, going back to the very beginning, we understand the importance of what this investigation was attempting to address. Bob Rudy Giuliani has defended and said that Trump is behind his very aggressive and public strategy. So called strategy towards Muller's investigation. Is that they're trying to pressure the Special Counsel to wrap it up quickly? Is that working

on any level? The Special Council's team are professionals, They're being supervised by a professional. I don't see any way that public political pressure not to mention insulting tweets are going to alter what they believe is the course of a thorough, professional, competent investigation into these significant matters. I don't see any possibility that they're going to be bullied or hurried into doing what they shouldn't do, which is to short step, short circuit the steps to arriving at

a conclusion that is firmly grounded in the evidence. So I don't see any advantage or potential gain from this and paign against Muller as it affects the investigation. I think it is more likely that the President and Mr Giuliani and others who have been extremely sharp in their criticism of Mr Muller. Um. I think it's very likely that their hope here is to continue to lay the

foundation for some action the President could take later. Maybe it's refusing his cooperation and taking the Fifth and or simply being unwilling to sit with Mr Muller for an interview. Or perhaps it is the firing of Mr Rosenstein or Mr Muller or both. But other than that, the public campaign simply will have no effect on how professionals go about their work. Only about forty five seconds here, Bob, So a quick question. Are we always see a grand

jury subpoena from Muller soon? We we? We may well, And I think it's very clear under the precedence that the President would be required to comply with that subpoena unless he chose to plead his rights under the Fifth Amendment. Thank you so much for being here, Bob. That's Bob Barrow, White House counsel for President Obama and a professor at

n y U. Law School. At her confirmation hearings to lead the CIA, Gina Hasspell promised you wouldn't resort to waterboarding and other harsh techniques that she once helped supervise. Hasspell was asked how she would respond to orders from President Trump to do something she considered immoral. Here's how she answered, My moral compass is strong. I would not allow CIA to undertake activity that I thought was immoral, even if it was technically legal. Um, I would absolutely

not permitted. Hassbell did not condemn water boarding, but said it was over. My guest is Joseph Margulis. He's a professor at Cornell Law School. He also represents Abu Zubda, a detainee in Guantamo. Guantanamo videotapes of his interrogations while he was in CIA custody were among those destroyed by the CIA in two thousand five. Joseph come with a particular viewpoint to these hearings in this nomination. Are you

against Haspeal's confirmation? Well, actually, the viewpoint that I had going into it was that I was not against it. What I have written before and what I stood by up until her testimony, was that I wanted to wait and see. I wanted to wait and see what was disclosed by the CIA and what she UH testified about. And after listening to her testimony, UH, now I'm opposed. I had I really had high hopes because so many people who I respect speak so highly of her. But

she disappointed me. All right, tell me how she disappointed you. Well, part of it is the answer that you just gave. She said, I have a very strong moral compass. I would not do anything that I think is immoral. People champion that answer. I'm happy to hear that answer. But then when she was asked directly three times by Senator Kamala Harris from California, fine, do you think that water boarding is immoral? Simply as that, she refused to answer.

So it is of no meaning to say, I have a strong moral compass, I won't do that which is immoral that I personally believe is immoral. If she won't say whether what was done constitute something that's immorral, In other words, why won't you repeat what was done before? Do you see this as much as uh an indictment of her, as a as a look at waterboarding and what it? You know, what the perception of it is

I don't mean to indict her. I mean partly to indict the process, which does not lead to meaningful inquiry into what took place, but also to to cast doubt on the extent to which we can trust the answers that we've received. She said, I wouldn't restart the program. I can give you my clear commitment that I wouldn't restart the program. Well, the obvious question then is why, Because she also says it were worked, we got good information, it helped the country, it was legal. I won't say

whether it was immoral. Well if that's the case, why wouldn't you restart it? Man? It appears her answer is, well, because it put the CIA in a bad light. Well that's not that. That indicates to me that you haven't learned any lesson and as long as you can protect the CIA, you're willing to engage in behavior that's reprehensible. She refused to answer questions from Senator Diane Feinstein about whether she oversaw the reported water boarding of a detainee

in two thousand two. She said she's going to address that in a closed session. Perhaps those closed sessions will bring out more information that she's willing to testify to in public. Possibly. All we know for sure is that, according to the CIA now she arrived and was the supervisor of the site where Alanna Sheery, who is the who is the person that referring to, was waterboarded. She was the officer in charge of the site when Alna

Sherry was waterboarded. The extent to which she is removed from that activity is unknown, but she was in charge of the site the central the c i A, according to opponents of the nomination, hasn't fully disclosed her role in enhanced derogation interrogation. Her explanation is that it would be a security risk if you started declassifying associations between CIA officers in particular terrorists or terrorism operations. Do you are you convinced by that? Well, that's that's always the

response that they give. It's always the justification for more and deeper classification. Uh, And it's non falsifiable. What we've got to do is say, well, we trust you. You say it's bad, therefore we won't look at it. Well, you know, the lesson of history is that they always air on the side of overclassifying that which doesn't need to be classified, and that's what history teaches us. Another focus of the hearing was, as I mentioned before, the

destruction of the video tapes of interrogation of detainees. She said her boss was the one that made the ultimate decision in two thousand five to destroy those tapes, but she had written a memorandum approving the shredding of the videos because she said that there were CIA officers faces on That. Is that a good reason. No, it's preposterous. First, it should be clear so people can judge what I'm saying those tapes were of the interrogation of my client.

Um uh. Secondly, every tenth grader knows that you can obscure identities on tapes. They could have been permanently obscured. You could have uh changed the voices, altered the voices. It's clear that there are anonymizing methods that are effective that would have protected the identity of anybody on those tapes. It's silly to suggest otherwise. What kind of legal proceedings is your client engaging in right now? He has not

charged in the military commissions. He has never been charged almost certainly will not be charged, and that's because of the difference between who they thought he was when they were torturing him, and who they now acknowledge him to be. That the chasm there. Uh. He has a pending habeas action in the District Courter for the District of Columbia challenging the lawfulness of his detention, and that's pending, and

it proceeds very slowly. I can imagine, um do some things of what the CIA has been putting a full court press, basically past past directors in support of her, and what some people say as well, you know, she's she's as good as we can get. If if we don't confirm her, perhaps someone will come along not as qualified the next person who has nominated That may very well, being as I say, there are people who I respect who support her. What I'm this is why I think

the integrity the process matters so much. We ought to look not simply at the qualifications of Gina Hospital to run the CIA, but the bankruptcy of the process by which it takes place. Do you do you really can you fairly say, based on what took place this morning, this much anticipated couple of hours, that you know anymore and can make an informed judgment as an American viewer and voter. The answer has to be no, and that has to leave people trouble in in about a minute here,

did you expect more? Really? I mean this is the CIA, after all, she's been for thirty years. No, no, no, it's wrong to say that. Um, it's wrong to say that what takes place is different because it's the CIA.

What takes place is the same because it's this. It's a commentary on our politics today, and they are so divided and so fractured and so bankrupt that no matter who's up, you can have somebody appointed to be dog catcher and you have the same kind of opaque, well trained answers that obscure more than they reveal, and that people should be nauseated by it. Thank you so much, Joe.

That's Joseph Murgouley's he's a professor at Cornell Law School and he represents a detainee in Guantanamo whose videotaped interrogations were destroyed by Haspell in two thousand five by the c i A. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com. Slash podcast. I'm June Rosso. This is Bloomberg