Rosenstein, Trump Set Thursday Meeting at White House

is considering resigning his post. Now. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders says that President Trump will meet with Rosenstein on Thursday when he returns to d C from the U n General Assembly meeting in New York, joining us as William Banks, professor at Syracuse University Law School. Bill Sanders also said that Rosenstein and Trump had had an extended conversation to discuss the recent news stories. I'd like to have heard that conversation. What's your reaction. Well, this is,

you know, the the newsday is quite powerful. I can't we can't really well have a Saturday night massacre on a Monday morning. So maybe that's why it was it was put off. But it's a it's a series of dramatic events. It's certainly uh, you know, the what was revealed by the New York Times on the weekend about what Rosenstein had done more than a year ago. It was a real bombshell, and I think it it's certainly

helped the president, at least optically. It helped the president distract from other things that are going on, and also to lend some credibility to his longstanding beef that the investigation is painted or politically biased. Whether there's more to it or whether he actually fires Rosenstein, you know, remains to be seen. All right, Let's let's just uh go

behind the behind the story here. Rosenstein allegedly, according to The New York Times, discussed in the spring of either wire tapping Trump in a conversation or removing him from office via amendment. And then, of course he denied that, categorically denied that, and some people there had said that it was sarcastically meant. But let's do this as a hypothetical. If the allegations were true, Suppose Rosenstein sees a White House in disarray or another deputy Attorney general does, and

there's danger to the country. Is it a derogation of his duty to talk about the amendment? I would not, you know, I don't think if the derogation was duty, but of course the amendments and can vote by the deputy Attorney general. It's been vote by majority of a cabinet and with the ascent of the Vice Press the United States, and none of whom, of course were in the room when one Rosenstein allegendly was talking about that possibility.

So now, um, what happens if Rosenstein resigns as opposed to is fired, because we know that a lot of Senators have put a line in the sand as far as if Trump fires him, that will send us into a constitutional crisis and something might be done. But what happens if he resigns, Well, it does avert that situation, and again it greatly strengthens the hand of the president. It certainly it doesn't directly impact Mr Mueller or investigation. I suppose that's an important thing to keep in mind.

You know, the Attorney General is supervising the Mueller investigation because of the recusal of the Attorney General, but the investigation goes on. Of course Mr Moller can't be directly fired but president, so it would be up to whoever the next deputy Attorney General is to supervise the investigation, and that he or she would have to decide what

kind of supervisor he or she's going to be. In the meantime, No, Francisco, the Solicitor General, is in line, but there are some indications that he might be conflicted because of his law firms relationship, having done Trump work on Trump matters. That seems kind of the same thing. Yeah, that is a conflict that could stand in the way,

although it could be disavowed. You know, there could be you know, clarifications spelled out by the firm or uh, Francisco acknowledging it, but suggesting that he was never involved in any of those matters and hasn't hasn't any interest in Who would be next in line. I believe it's the head of the Office of Legal Council next, who was a man in Myers. I don't know him. Uh, there is a chain. But of course it would also be possible for the president quickly to a point someone

and have that person go through the Senate proceeding. All of this is you know, as you know, just a few weeks from the term elections, and presumably at in the eleventh hour of the Mueller investigation. So there's a tremendous amount of momentum towards allowing things to play out as they are. Former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and of course it was his notes supposedly that were viewed

in the New York Times article. He says that if Rod Rosenstein leaves his post, it puts the Special Counsel's Russia investigation at risk. Do you agree with that? Well, only at risk in the same sense that it has been from the beginning. If the Trump were Mr Trump were to try something like the Saturday Night massacred to continued to dismiss people until he found one who was willing to take on Mr Muller, you know, something cataclysmic

of that nature could have happened again. You know, I think, because the investigation is probably nearly at its end, because the elections are so also just around the band, I think there's going to be a lot of momentum toward allowing the process to be completed. And then, you know, the critical question then will be what happens with the report. One of the risks is that a new Deputy Attorney General could decide simply to sit on the report that not make it public in any case, and uh leave

us all wondering what Mr Mueller found. Yeah, I know that some of the attorneys who worked on the one of the other investigations suggested that the grand jury could could do something in that respect and request that the judge to the judge that it makes it public. But it will be another down another avenue there that will have to be questioning over and over again. Thanks so much, Bill,

It's always playful to have you on Jealous. As a Senate Judiciary committee prepares to hear testimony from a woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, Democrats are investigating another incident involving Kavanaugh, this time during his time at Yale University. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham said he

wouldn't ruin Kavanaugh's life based on accusations. I don't know when it happened, I don't know where it happened, and everybody named in regard to being there said it didn't happen. I'm just being honest unless there's something more. No, I'm not going to ruin uh Judge Kavanaugh's life over this, but she should come forward, she should have her say she will be respectfully treated. Joining me is Steve Sanders, a professor at Indiana University Marish School of Law. So, Steve,

what's your reaction to Senator Graham's statement. Let her come forward, but unless there's something else, I'm not going to consider it. Well. I think Senator Graham's um uh characterization points up the real difficulty in the way this hearing is apparently going to play out, which is essentially it's going to be a matter off he said. She said, Um. Dr Blazie will give her recollection and answer questions and make her allegations.

Judge Kavanaugh will respond to those. Um. Neither apparently has anything, you know, that would normally be considered sort of hard evidence to support them. And so in the end, it's going to come down to who the senators and the rest of the country watching the proceedings believe, and and

that makes it difficult. UM. I think the one thing where one thing I would note in response to Senator Graham is one way to avoid that would be to subpoena additional witnesses, to subpoena other people who were allegedly at the party, including Judge Kavanaugh's friend UM, Mr Judge who Um has written about his high school exploits and

drinking and so forth. Um. You know, now these people have said in statements that they have no recollection, but that's not the same thing as either answering questions to an FBI agent um, which the Senate has decided not to go forward with, or answering questions under oath in

a Senate committee proceeding. If we if we had those additional data points, that additional information questions, UH, scrutiny of their credibility, um, it might help tip the balance as to who's really telling the truth in this case, Steve, the Anita Hill hearings have been criticized over the years, and they were four days long, and they included four

corroborating witnesses plus an FBI investigation. So is there really any point in having this kind of a he said, She said hearing, Well, I think there isn't There is a point if you believe in the principle that the senators here aren't the only audience. That's a reasonable conclusion that most of the senators have have had their minds made up, and probably nothing that happens that the hearing

is going to change that. I think there may be some exception to that with uh, say, especially Senator Susan Collins of Maine. And and there are other Senators who are going to have to vote for this who may not have their minds entirely made up yet, such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who serve in the larger Senate.

But I think this is the Supreme Court, this is public business, and so the audience here is also for the American people, and those who watch the hearings will decide for themselves who is credible, who they believe, and if they do their duty as citizens, they will act accordingly in the way they choose to be involved in politics and ultimately how they cast their votes in future elections if they believe or not that the Senate is doing its job in adequately vetting a nominee for a

lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Steve, you handle constitutional law. You're an expert in that area. So let me ask you about Clarence Thomas. Has there been a shadow over Clarence Thomas because of the accusations of Anita Hill and would the same be true of Kavanaugh. You know, I don't think that it has in any meaningful or detectable way. Um, affected the way Justice Thomas does his job, or the way litigants present arguments that they know Justice Thomas is

going to hear. Um. You know, it's that has been sort of overshadowed by other, let's say, quirks that Justice Thomas has. It is virtually never speaking at oral argument, for example, and clinging to a sort of jurisprudential style that most of the other court doesn't believe with and

doesn't go along with. I think the potential ramifications for Brett Kavanaugh if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court might be greater because of the time we're in a combination of the me too movement, some indications that the Democrats, at least one prominent Democrats shall than white House has indicated that um there this may not be the end of it, that if the Democrats retake the Senate, they may reopen the matter and do what they think is

a more thorough investigation. Um, we'll see. There's talk this morning of the possibility, although they seem a bit thin at this point of other women coming forward with similar allegations against Mr Kavanaugh. So I think it's hard to predict.

In the short term. I think there are plenty. There will be plenty of people in our politicized environment where the Supreme Court seems to be more salient in people's minds, who will be eager not to let people forget um the cloud that has over Judge Kavanaugh if these allegations are not thoroughly disposed of or thoroughly discredited. Thank you so much, as always, Steve. That's Steve Standers. He's a professor at Indiana University maur School of Law. Thanks for

listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg m