Strzok Threatened with Contempt Citation in Hearing

and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Today's congressional testimony of Peter Struck, the FBI agent who exchanged anti Trump text with a bureau lawyer, promised to be contentious, and it lived up to its promise, breaking down in partisan bickering among the committee members from the very first question. In an impassioned answer, Struck said his personal political beliefs

played no role in the investigation. I can't assure you, Mr Chairman, at no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took. Furthermore, this isn't just me sitting here telling you you don't have to take my word for it and restep at every investigative decision. There are multiple layers of people above me joining me now. Is

William Banks, professor at Syracuse University Law School. Bill Republicans have been using these personal texts for their argument that Mueller's investigation is biased for some time. Is there any hope that this hearing won't turn into a partisan match as it started out? I don't think so. June had more fireworks this morning, and there we're on the mall on the fourth of July. From the accounts that I read,

it's lining up that way. We already know as much as we need to know about his behavior during the investigation. We all recalled just a few weeks ago the in the Inspector General report thoroughly reviewed uh the involvement of Stroking and his UH then girlfriend page and the inappropriate text, and he it in no uncertain terms that while the behavior was improper and unprofessional, that there's no evidence that it had any impact on the impartiality of the investigation.

So what's the point of this testimony. He already testified in private, right, so you know? The Independent Council investigation and the more investigation are separate, of course, from Congressional investigations. They are conducted in the executive branch. Congress likes to remind the American people and others in government that it has at least as much authority to investigate the going on in government as does the other political branch, and

that's what they're doing. Unfortunately, in this case, I believe that it's been done to make partisan points and not for any fruitful purpose. Did you hear anything that you hadn't heard before about those texts? No, not sing at all.

In fact, you know there was. The investigation in the Inspector General, of course, was lengthier, more deliberative, and indeed the report was more thorough about the nature of the texts and the context in which they were written than anything that's going to come out in the hearing today.

What the Republicans wanted to demonstrate, I think at the very beginning was that he Struck was much more heavily involved in the Mueller investigation than uh then had been led we have been led to believe before he asked how many individuals he interviewed in the first eight days, and things like that that get into the weeds of an ongoing investigation, that he Struck the witness properly refused

to answer. A couple of things struck me as a lawyer, and one was when Struck said that the FBI Council, as you mentioned, instructed him not to answer questions about the continuing investigation of Russian meddling, and then Republican Robert Goodlad, who was an attorney and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said Struck couldn't consult with the FBI's attorney and could only consult with his personal attorney. It seemed to be the FBI's privilege. He was asserting, are there any grounds

for saying you know which attorney you can consult with? Well? There was, you know. Underlying that that debate, which is a fair one, is the question of whether he was there under subpoena or voluntarily. He says, uh that he was there voluntarily. He'd agreed to appear before he ever received a subpoena. So if he's there voluntarily, I suppose there's there's more reason to argue that he should be consulting only with his own a lawyer other than rather

than with the FBI. If he's responding subpoena, of course, it's part of his job to ask for advice from his employer about what he can say and what he can So then that would cut against what good Lad said, because good landing that he was there nder subpoena. Yes, it seems to be an easy thing to figure out

whether he was there under whether subpoena was served or not. Um. Something he did say that that also struck me was he said he was one of a handful of people who knew details of the Russian election interference and it's possible connection to Trump camp and to the campaign. He said this information had the potential to derail and quite possibly defeat Mr Trump, but he didn't. He didn't even

cross his mind to expose that. Do we know what he's referring to their No, we don't for sure, although given the timing, we can surmise that he was aware of the electronic surveillance that may have been carried on in June and July of those who were involved in in the Trump campaign because of their involvement themselves with with with foreign entities Russia and the Ukraine. We know more about the nature of those now than we did that.

Where does this leave the Muller investigation? Will this have any more effect on the Republicans ratcheting up of the attempts to derail the Muller investigation? Will this give credence to either side? I don't think so. You know, it's been relatively quiet lately, and and here we are in July, and soon the Congress is going to take their summer recess, and I think this will quiet down and Mueller will

will continue on. We might think that he's getting close to the end of his investigation, but we don't know that for sure. But I doubt there'll be more fireworks unless something happens, say around the Labor day period when they when they come back from recess. I like to to change gears just a little bit and talk about Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer. He's been He's been doing things that sort of don't fit in with the way he has behaved up until this point, one being that

he talked with ABC. And is this an outreach to the prosecutor's office saying that, you know, basically indicating that he wants to turn or do you really need to do outreach to the prosecutor's office? You don't. I mean, it's hard to read Cohen, and there have been so many, uh, permutations and changes in the narrative along the way. But indeed, you know, the longer this goes on, in the morning, thanks pile up against him. He may be looking for ways out and ways to make a deal and talking

to the media. Is there's one way to hasten that process, I suppose, but you know it's uh, it's hard to tell. In his case, again, it may just have been a slow day at ABC. Well, Um, what what sort of puzzles me is what I mean, we assume that his attorneys are that at least his attorneys who are representing him criminally, they are talking with the prosecutors about the case. So it's just it's so people are saying, well, is there going to be a deal, And maybe this is

outreach for a deal. I mean, isn't that something that you discuss with the prosecutors. Yes, it is and and and I assume that is going on. And why you know, Cohen may just needed to get some attention on that particular day. Uh. You know, how much of the allegations against Colin are amenable to deal making is hard to know at this point, but certainly they're talking about some

of the issues. And another odd thing is he has hired Lanny Davis, who is known he wrote a book about how the election was stolen from Hillary Clinton by the revelations of FBI Director uh Comy, and now he's representing Michael Cohen at what you know, just just for a second think about it. Tell us what you're thoughts are about why, well, uh, success rate? I think you know, there are a few high profile lawyers and these politically

connected cases who have done especially well. I think Davis is a very good reputation, and so I think which side of the partisan line Cohen is on matters very well when it's his own skin. And the other thing is Lennie Davis is has connections to the Clintons. He does. It's ironic to be sure, But again, you know, he closed the Clinton file. Now he's opening a Colon file, and he's got other files. And that's that's what lawyers

in this business do. Yes, Well, it's it's it gets getting more and more complicated, and it seems like there's a lot of overlap recently. Well thanks Bill. As always, that's William Banks. He's a professor at Syracuse University Law School. Democrats are a value to throw roadblocks in the way

of a confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. One of the groups mounting the fight is Demand Justice, joining me as Christopher Kang, Chief Council of Demand Justice and former Deputy Council to President Barack Obama Chris Only conservatives will be nominated by President Trump. So why fight Kavanaugh when you could end up with someone even more conservative next time? Well, I'm not sure that we could end up with somebody even more conservative next time, given Brett

Kavanaugh's demonstrated record. And so we're going to fight this nomination because Brett Kavanaugh's record demonstrates that he is anti healthcare, he's anti abortion, and he thinks Trump is above the law. And these are the values and the principles that we need to stand up and fight for, regardless of what theoretically might happen down the line. So from the y to the how Republicans have the votes? Justice Neil Gorsich was confirmed by a vote of fifty ft. How can

you beat that Republicans do not have the votes? Republicans currently have a majority of Senators. But when this nomination and unfolds, when Judge Kavanaugh's full record comes out, when the one million documents that are sitting in the Bush Presidential Library come out from his time there and reveal even more about his thinking and his analysis when it comes to these critical legal issues, I think you'll see

the tide change. They are currently a majority of Senators who believe that healthcare for people with pre existing conditions should be maintained and not as the Trump administration is trying to do taken away in the courts. And there are majority of people who believe that Roe versus Way it should not be overturned. These are critical issues that I think we can change the tide on, and when the time comes for a vote, Judge Kavanaugh can and

should be defeated. Let's skip over the Republican votes for a moment and talk about the three red state Democrats who voted for Gorsage. Joe Mansion of West Virginia has said that Kavanaugh has all the right qualities and high moral standards. Can you keep him and the other Democrats from voting for Kavanaugh to protect themselves at the ballot box? If you just look at Judge Kavanaugh his record resume,

there's no question that he has the qualifications. But qualifications are more than what school you went to and where you worked as your last job. When Senator Manson and other senators look at his record, they look at President Trump's litmus test when it came to overturning the Affordable

Care Act and its critical healthcare protections. I think he's not going to have a very hard time politically going back and saying I am continuing to stand up for all of the West Virginians who have pre existing who have pre existing conditions and are receiving healthcare, and that would be taken away if Judge Kavanaugh were confirmed. We're hearing the same things from the two Republican female senators, Susan Collins and Lisa Rakowski that we heard when came

up for a nomination. They wanted to make sure he'll follow precedent and not overturn Roe v. Wade. But Gorsuch, his votes show that whatever nominee says, he's been vetted by the federal society and will follow his past. I completely agree with you, and I think that that will be true of Judge Kavanaugh as well. And Judge Kavanaugh's record goes even further than that. Just last year, he delivered a speech in which he praised Justice rank with

dissent in row. I think we know where he's headed and what his views are with respect to precedent and with respect to Roll versus Wade and I think that when Senator Collins and Senator Makowski and other senators have a chance to question him and examine that record, they're going to understand that if he is confirmed, Roll versus Wade will in fact be overturned. So what is your group going to do? Concretely? Where are you going to be spending your money? How much of it? What's the plan?

We already have ads up in Maine and Alaska, will have other ads up going as soon as the end of the week talking about these issues, talking about healthcare, talking about protecting healthcare for people with pre existing conditions, talking about the fact that Roll versus Wade is on the brink of being overturned, and encouraging people to contact

their senators and make their voices known. We are. We've announced that our overall budget for ads will be five million dollars, and I think you'll see that spread out from now until the time that this vote is taken. How does your budget compare to the budgets of the conservative groups that have made this You know, for years and years have been fighting to have a more conservative court. Well,

we'll never match the conservative groups dollar for dollar. But I also don't think we need to when the American people, by a majority of two, by a margin of two to one, believe that ro versus wage should not be overturned, and by a majority of two to one do not believe the President Trump should be taking away health care

for people with pre existing conditions. We're gonna see a lot of grassroots energy and activism come out, and I think that people's voices, their telephone calls, they're marching in the streets. I think that's going to overwhelm any money disadvantage. We might have about a minute left here. You helped oversee the confirmations of Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Sonya Soto mayor are you gonna be taking part in the prep of Democratic senators for these hearings or how are

you going to be taking part in that? I mean, I think we leave it to the Democratic senators and their staff and the legal experts that they can sult to figure out exactly what lines of questioning and issues that they might be interested in. But I will say one of the things that I'm helping to lift up, based on my experience with Atlanta Kagan's nomination, is again

these documents at the White House the Clinton administration. The Clinton Library turned over a hundred and seventy thousand pages of documents from Atlanta Kagan's confirmation process of what the Senate asked for on a bipartisan basis. There are more than a million documents out there in the Bush Library for Judge Kavanaugh, and I'm helping China light on that to make sure that the entire Senate gets the documents

it needs in order to make a decision. Thanks Chris, I'll note that you change your Twitter name to Chris hashtag stop Kavanaugh Kang. That's Christopher Kangy's Chief Council of Demand Justice and former Deputy Council to President Obama. 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 am June Brolso this is Bloomberg m HM.