Preet Bharara Explains It All

I have seen her since she was an itty bitty baby, and it's just amazing she's how old now, Brian, she's almost two, and you should come to l A more often and hang out girls chat with She was adorable and of course Brian has a wonderful wife, Claire, and I always love seeing Claire as well. So we also did something we don't normally do, and that is we had a photo shoot. We were ready for our close ups because we're taking some new pictures for the podcast. We want a fresh and up the look and of

course includes your beautiful mug and more of the photos. So, um, I don't know. I think you have a future male modeling Brian. Oh yeah, and if you believe that I've got a Trump University dude you to give you anyway. Uh, I handed the photographer a twenty for some air brushing, so hopefully that works. Yeah. Sure. Anyway, it was a lot of fun and it was fun to see you, and as I said, it was great fun to see Eliza and Claire. Meanwhile, I'm back in New York. I'm

not traveling for an entire month. I'm not going to get on an airplane because my life has been insane with a lot of travel the beginning of the summer. So now I'm just keeping my feet firmly planted on the ground and I'm here in our New York studio. Brian, you're still in l A. And we just had a conversation, a really interesting one with former U S attorney Pre Barrara. He was a wonderful source of information and insight about

everything that's going on with the Trump investigation. I think it's very easy in the day to day of the coverage to lose perspective um and to really understand what's going on, and so I think he was terrific at stepping back and giving us, in a sort of Joe Friday, just the facts ma'am style, and maybe I'm dating myself with that reference, a sense of what matters here, what the stakes are, and really to help us understand the

Trump investigation and how it's going and really Trump investigations, because he talked about the different jurisdictions or auspices under which these investigations are taking. Is that that the right

legal way to say, Brian. With the Russian investigation being conducted, of course by Robert Muller, and the investigation into Michael Cohen's activities being investigated by the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which is Prett's old office, and folks, if you're unfamiliar, being a U. S. Attorney is essentially the top federal prosecutor in a particular location, and the Southern District of New York is probably the

most important office in the country because it covers Manhattan, so Wall Street is under its jurisdiction. A lot of New York political corruption cases are under its jurisdiction, and very relevant here, uh, the home and business of the

President of the United States are under its jurisdiction. By the way, everyone, this is a crossover show, and that means our conversation will be broadcast on pres terrific podcast try to say that ten times fast, called Stay Tuned with pret and it will be broadcasts on our terrific podcast called Katie Curic. And we're trying to come up with a new name, so we'll take any suggestions. Everyone, just keep Brian's name out of it. Just I'm totally kidding.

But anyway, we're hoping that people who are listening to Preach show may find ours worth downloading or subscribing to. And conversely, we're hoping that you all will check out Stay Tuned with pret because he's absolutely terrific and has a lot of incredibly smart insights to share. And if you're a longtime listener of our show, tell your friends, tell your family, tell your mail carrier, tell your hairdresser.

We're not proud, just tell everyone please. Meanwhile, we had a great conversation, as Brian said, with Prett, who gave us really some much needed perspective, and we began by talking to him about his short lived friendship with Donald Trump and the events leading up to his vacating the premises. A lot of people outside New York know you as the U S attorney in Manhattan who was fired by

Donald Trump. And you've told the story a million times, I'm sure, but can you tell our listeners as well as some people who haven't heard the first episode of your show, what happened and why it got so much attention? Um? Well, thanks again for having me. It's very exciting to be here on Stay Tuned with Katie and Brian. You're looking for a new name, we are. I got some very twitter suggestions. I think I think you like Stay Tuned. My lawyers will not go after you if you if

you name it Stay Tuned with Katie and Brunn. Oh wait, pretty, did you not get the memo we're actually replacing you on your show? This is very awkward. Actually, I thought he had been told Katie like the worst political junkie ever. If you're if you're starting off the interview with your fired because you know that happened to me last year, which was I think the question. We've come full circles, see how I feel, abuster. Look, So, so, I was

the U S Attorney for a number of years. It was appointed by President Obama, confirmed by the Senate, and then it ordinarily happens when a new president comes in particularly one of the other party. All the US attorneys, all the ambassadors, they all know that the new president and the administration deserves its own people. And that's totally normal.

Happens every time, and I expected that to be true for me also in November when when Donald Trump won and in fact I had no job security, uh that I could have expected even if Hillary Clinton had one, because it's a new president. But about eight days after the election, the President elect Trump called the Senator for whom I used to work, Chuck Schumer, and said, among other things, do you think pre would stay in his

job and stay on for another term? And claimed to be a big fan of mine, said I was doing a great job. I thought about it. I had expected to go do other things. I've been in public service for over seventeen years at that point, so I thought about it. And the best job I've ever had that I will ever have. It's an independent job. We did, you know the job a politically, we don't think about

someone being a Democrat and a Republican. We just bring our cases independently, which is the reputation of the office. And so then I was asked to meet with the President elect before the formal offer, I guess would happen. So I went to Trump Tower November. His desk with all the magazines piled up, there's a lot of Trump paraphernalia. Well, every magazine cover that he's been on the cover of is on his desk, and they're probably six deep. Was

it still the case? I saw that, But I also saw in the hallway leading to his office there's all sorts of Trump paraphernalia, the pictures and photographs and you know,

knickknacks and all sorts of things. But before I even got up there in the lobby, remember at the time during transition, there were all sorts of reporters hanging out sort of penned in behind the velvet rope um, you know, seeing who was coming and going, and so you know, people recognize me when I when I went by, and some reporter while I was waiting for the elevator to come, this he held out, you know, Mr Brara, are you here to serve a subpoena? I wasn't at that moment um,

so I know the older takes a long time. It's a goal plate elevator. You go upstairs. The president was running. President elect was running a little bit late, so I shot the breeze with Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon, who was wearing only one shirt at the time. Uh in his office, waited for the President elect to come in. The president was very uh, you know, lovely. We talked

about the office. Nothing inappropriate was said. He said I was doing a great job, he said, and I'm sure you're getting a lot offers to go into private practice. I hope you would consider staying, and I said I would. The only odd thing that happened in the meeting was he pushed, you know, a yellow pad of post it's towards me and asked me for my phone number, my

phone numbers. So it was odd that the President elect of the United States of America was asking me from my digits, and presumably they already had them somewhere, because that's how I came to be at the meeting in the first place. So I didn't really understand, although Jared and Steve didn't seem to think it was out at all, that you know, that the next leader of the free world was asking someone first phone numbers, didn't think anything of it. Um I was asked to call Jeff Sessions,

the incoming Attorney general, from the elevator bank outside. Everyone said they were excited to work with me, and so that was nice. Jeff Sessions. I did from the elevator bank outside the elevator bank on the I think the floor tower. They wanted to make sure that, you know, they had checked the box. You know, he's going to be the Attorney general. I'm gonna be the US attorney who puatively works for the Attorney General. I just wanted

to make sure that he was looped in. And it wasn't just the you know, the president and his staff deciding on their own. It was a sort of a consultation with the cabinet official. Who's the most relevant one for my purposes and also the right thing to do. So he said, yeah, nothing if not good for him, Uh suggestions. Who I knew a little bit when I used to work for Senator Schumer. He was the ranking member on the subcommittee for which I worked, so I

knew him a little bit. He said, looking forward to working with you. Then I went downstairs and I had I had asked President elect Trump if they were going to be making an announcement, and he said, well, was there press when you came in, I said, yes, there was. Well did they recognize you? And I said yes they did. I didn't tell them the subpoena things I thought he might appreciate. How funny would that be? Now it's a

little funnier and more relevant now. But um, he said, why don't you go back out and just tell the press that I've asked you to stay? I think you're pick and I've asked you to stay. And so I did. And that was the last meeting I had with the president elect. But then, Um, as I've said publicly before, he would call me from time to time, which is an odd thing for a sitting president elect to be calling,

even though we had no prior relationship. Um. And it wasn't you know, a matter of business with the Justice Department. He called me in December. Then he called me again two days before the inauguration. What did he call you about? Seemingly just to chat and make nice. It was just small talk, and it seemed odd to me at the time. Now we know he does that from time to time. He cultivates people. We know from Jim Comey's testimony that

from time to time the president would call him. Um, He never asked me to do anything inappropriate and never has asked me to do anything untoward. But it's all odd for someone who has, you know, about to have the biggest job in the world to have time to call, you know, the local U. S attorney in Manhattan, who I will note, has technical jurisdiction over, among other things,

that person's businesses, that person's residence, that person's associates. Were you conducting any investigations at the time into anything Trump related. I'm not gonna answer that broad question, but i will say that at the time, publicly, there were calls from my office to look at all sorts of things, including the monuments clause that people have heard things about. So

fast forward to the time. So when I got those calls from the President elect, I let the head of transition know, and I made sure that people in my staff knew, and we decided it was okay to return the calls because he was not yet the president of the United States and there was no there was no actual Attorney general at the time. He didn't say anything that he was not supposed to say, but it was just it was just a weird Well, I'm just curious when you say small talk like that mean, do you

play golf? I mean? What was that? When he called me before the inauguration a day or two before the inauguration, probably the biggest day of his life in some way, like, don't you have a speech to write? I asked him about this speech? I said, I said, sir, how's the speech coming? And he said, which you may find interesting, it's going really well. I'm writing it all myself, and it's about it's about hope, neither of which things I believe to be true. Carnage. Maybe maybe the Wordsmith's got

to him between like the Wednesday and the Friday. I think Steve Bannon got to him. He may he may have. He asked me if I was doing all right. He told me some stories about He told me how lots of people are coming to see him. He was very impressed that, you know, governors all around the country had their hands out and wanted government handouts. It was basically like he was trying to be your buddy. Am I right? Yeah?

My My view is now based on other things that happened, on calls he made to Jim Comey, and the way he conducts himself and the way he sort of violence, the protocols and norms of the Justice Department Independent Investigation that in the way he conducted his business previously, that he doesn't see walls between law enforcement and politics, and that it's good for him to cultivate a relationship and be buddies with people if at such time you want

a favor or and again there's this speculation on my part, but it's quite educated speculation. If it's sometime you need someone to do you a favor, or to lay off somebody, or to show loyalty, it's better to have had a friendly relationship with that person. We'll never know, because a couple of months into the presidency, Donald Trump called me again. Now he's a sitting president, and now it seems highly inappropriate that it wasn't coming through the channel of the

Attorney General or the deputy Attorney General. There's no warning about it. I didn't know what the call was about. Um. There are protocols that are very sort of serious that the White House has put out because of prior scandals, that make it clear that nobody is supposed to talk to a law enforcement official at a certain level about an enforcement Actionally, I didn't know if he was gonna

be calling me about enforcement action. But I thought it was odd, uh, And I kept thinking about and I called my deputy into discuss whether or not I should return the coin that seems bizarre to people. Your boss calls you, you call him back. You know, the president really isn't your boss. If you were a local United States attorney, you serve the people, You serve your oath, you serve the Constitution. In some measures, you serve the

Attorney General. But we in the in the what we have called over time, the Sovereign District of New York, sometimes don't even think we serve of the Attorney General. And I didn't know what the nature of the call was going to be. And one of the things we thought about was, well, how's this going to work if he says something inappropriate and cross some line, which was possible, and now we know, you know, after the fact, that he's done things like that. I believe, who's gonna believe

my side of the throat? We actually contemplated, and this is interesting in later we had a discussion about whether or not we should tape the president of the United States. We decided against that because we, unlike Michael Cohen, his own lawyer. I thought it was kind of uncool to take the president of the United States. Then we thought

about having a witness to the call. But it just shows you, even early on, before a lot of the new information has come out, that there were lots and lots of people, including the president's own lawyer, who believed that when you have a conversation with Donald Trump, you want to have proof of what the conversation was because there might be a dispute about the content of it later. And the other thing I kept thinking about was something that Donald Trump said over and over and over again

during the campaign. He kept casting aspersions on Loretta Lynch for having that now famous meeting at the tarmac with former President Bill Clinton, whose wife Hilly Clinton, was under investigation. And that was just a nice chit chat, the participants claim. And I believe that to be true because I trust Luretta Lynch. I think she's an honorable person who wouldn't violate her oath. But Donald Trump himself got to say, over and over and over again, what do you think

they were talking about. I'm sure they were talking about the case. And I'm thinking to myself, even if the president of United States sought to have an innocent conversation with me, which I don't know how he has time to have a conversation with me given everything else going on in the world. Who's going to believe that. If later it looks like we chose not to investigate something, or we were investigating something and chose not to bring a charge against an associate, it has all the makings

of an accusation that we had some side deal. I went to Trump Tower, I kissed the ring uh. He he asked me to stay. I agreed to stay. There was some deal of of friendship or loyalty, and no good could come of returning the call. So I called actually Jeff Sessions, chiefest staff, and said I got this phone call, and he agreed with me that I shouldn't return the call. Knowing that, you know, knowing what we know about the President's personality, he would be what's the

technical term, piste off. So I called the secretary at the White House back on March nine, two thou and seventeen as that I consulted with the Justice Department for a variety of reasons. I don't think it's appropriate for me to have a conversation directly with the President, no offense, um and and twenty hours later I was asking my resignation. Now, I cannot prove that those things are connected, and everyone else who was a holdover was also asked to resign.

But it seems odd to me that those things would be so closely connected in time unless they were at least a little bit related. So pretty you won't answer the question about whether there was any Trump related investigation. You're gonna ask me something anyway, aren't you. Well, I'm gonna ask you saying a little bit connected to that, which is is there any evidence of Trump similarly reaching out to any other U. S. Attorney around the country. No,

there's not. I mean I presumably, uh, hypothetically it could have happened. And the other thing to be aware of he then the president. My understanding is from the reporting personally interviewed certain um, you know, appointments to U. S. Attorney, including the one in New York, the one in Washington, D C. And I think one in Florida, all who incidentally, out of the nineties, three offices have technical jurisdiction over the person and property of the President and his associates.

So you think he would have learned from that interaction, and it seems like he didn't. Again, which is not to say that any one did anything wrong or inappropriate, but there is there is a you know, definitely an m O on the part of this president to develop relationships with people, whether they're in law enforcement or otherwise, when the norm has always been different. And and have you run into anybody since have you been able to ascertain if in fact those things might have been connected

that you weren't going to play ball? And so I've not I've not made any accusation along those lines, but I've lived long enough to know you have to wait and see what the historical record is. And then you know, when when I was asked to resign, I didn't. And initially I wasn't trying to be a prima donna. I just was confused because I was the only person from the prior administration who had had a personal meeting with

the president, shook his hand and was asked to stay. So, you know, given the level of incompetence that this administration has often shown, I think that's not even not even a partisan point, It's just a fact. When they rolled out the travel band, They rolled out all sorts of other things. Maybe it didn't occur to them. Well, some people stand in a different position. So I was just trying to get the answer. How did they let you

know that you're the acting deputy general? Danna bent A called me a two thirty on on the afternoon of March tenth, it was of Friday, and asked me to my letter of resonation. I said to him again, I wasn't trying to be difficult because I served at the pleasure of the president. Are you sure it applies to me? Because you know I had that thing at the Trump Tower.

Bannon was there. President he asked me to stay. So this is obviously didn't apply to everyone, because two of the sitting US attorneys at the time, one was Rod Rosenstein, obviously he wasn't being asked to resign, didn't want him to go, and the others Danna bent To himself. Ah, So it was unclear to me if they meant for me to be asked to let go, to be like O or not. And then again, because I lived a long time, I thought it just needed to be clear

that this was the wish of the president. If it was, and it took twenty four hours to learn that. You know, I walked out into into the open air as a free civilian man, but I didn't want it to be you know, suggested if in fact there was some nefarious

thing going on. I'm not saying their watch, but if in fact there was something nefarious going on, and people are trying to avoid an investigation of some sort, that it should just be clear that this was the wish of the president and not some functionary who was in an acting capacity at the Justice Department. Why was that important because so later on if you have to find out why people did what they did, people don't have

plausible deniability. If I if I had never had the meeting, again, as I said, the outset and people conflate these things, I had no expectation of staying. There's actually not even a tradition of the next president keeping someone before. Now sometimes it happens. Rod Rosenstein served under George W. Bush and then was was kept on by Barack Obama and kept on again by Nald Trump. So there are exceptions that Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed by one president and kept

on by the following president. So it's a small minority of people I didn't expect to be in that position, but once someone asks you to stay in with a lot of fanfare, you know, I was asked to stand for another term before he appointed in a pretty public way, very public way. And then when you see other things that happened, and you see you begin to see the ways in which the president thinks about law enforcement and thinks about personal loyalty, and thinks about how you interfere

with things. You know, issues pardons without going through the process, asks Jeff Sessions, as we found out later, and I believe this, you know, can you can the department do something to back off on jour Pyle asked Jim call me and I believe this also, can you back off

on Michael Flynn? These are the kinds of conversations that the president thinks are appropriate that that puts into a different light the nature of the cause he was making to me, And as somebody who's been in the legal system for so long, why is that such a dangerous m o pre Because because the law is the law, and it's supposed to be independently enforced, and no one gets special privileges, that law applies equally to everybody, even

though we have seen examples of this. These are I think transgressions of norms and very important norms in this country. Unlike a Banana Republic, elected leaders don't get to decide because they have enemies or they have friends, Um who gets prosecuted who doesn't based on their level of friendship with you or based on their level of adversari, noess towards you. That's how it's supposed to be. And and scale look at the scandals have been avoided because they

have these protocols in place. That the reason you have these guidelines that make clear that a political official in the White House is not supposed to call a you know, a lower level Department of Justice official to say, hey, what's going on without investigation of my former business colleague? Or hey, can you take a look at investigating uh, you know this political adversary I had. That's not That's not a kind of country I think that we're supposed

to live in. I'm just curious that Brian's gonna have a million questions that Brian, just because there's an opening here, does it concern you? Does the nomination of Brett Avanaugh concern you? For that reason that he seems to have a particular view about the power of the presidency. So I think there's reason to be concerned that Brett Kavanaugh has a view a little bit conveniently adopted after he

had a different view as a policy matter. As people may know, Brett Kavanaugh, one of the first things he did as a as a lawyer was working on the Star investigation of a sitting president and appears to have had a quite different view of what you can subject to sitting president too. And later he had he has had a slightly different view, had an epiphany somehow you look,

it can be working in the White House. I mean, this was not a crazy story that that experiencing the incoming that you see actually working inside the White House, which he did under the George W. Bush administration. He changed his mind and he acknowledged that it was a

you know, different position. It looks I credit his you know statement that he changed his mind more than I credit what I've seen Rudy Giuliani do massold Rudy Giuliani the I'm TV recently saying that a president does not have to obey a subpoena for testimony, when at the same time I'm forgetting who it was on cable television showing him a video of himself saying the exact opposite. And rather than say I had a change of heart or I changed my mind, he said I never said

those things. So Grigiliani, uniquely in public life and American law, can have two opposite ideas in his head at the same time and claim them both to be correct. Well, the difference is one president's a Democrat and the others a Republican. And do you think that Brett Kavanaugh's nomination was more appealing because of his change of heart? I'm prepared to believe that, Like what I think is clear. Uh, No, matter what you think about the president is that he

doesn't do a lot of homework. Um, I doubt, in fact not. I wouldn't would bet everything I have that he didn't read a number of opinions by brit have and I'd be shocked if you read even one. I'd be shocked if you read the briefing materials that were put together and we prepared senators for confirmation hearings and to figure out what our views would be on particular people who might be nominated. Those briefing materials go to many, many,

many many, many pages and hundreds of pages. So I'm prepared to believe that Donald Trump you took advice from, as everyone knows, um the Federal Society and the Heritage Foundation to come up with his list of first twenty and I think then Brett Caabnot was added later to that list people who the conservative community of a particular stripe I thought were good and people on the conservative

side of politics would support. And then in getting briefed orally casually, you know, some of the bullet points that must have been suggested to the president would have included this idea that Brett Kavanaugh has been putting forward that the president can do, you know, exercise his power in a very broad way. And I'm sure that was a little bit music to his ears. I don't know if that was the the basis. I think other presidents who are not in the legal jeopardy that the President Trump

is in might have also appointed Brett Kavin. I think of Jeb bushould become the president, Brett Kavina would have been at the absolute top of the list. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was a little bit of

icing on the cake. What is striking that In his first public statement as President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh said no president has conducted a more thorough or comprehensive process to pick a nominee than President Trump has, which is kind of an extraordinary states that it's one of the most bizarre and demonstrably false statements ever made, which is saying a lot from how do you know

it's follow how do you know it's demonstrably false? Because the historical record shows that multiple presidents, not sometimes presidents don't consult that much, the multiple multiple presidents have consulted extensively with the other party. There are books on how Bill Clinton and you might not like his nominees if you're a conservative, how he reached out across the aisle,

talked to Orange Hatch and other folks. Um who I think during one of these periods was high ranking or the chair of the leader of the Republicans and the Judiciary Committee to vet the possibility of people he would

be nominating. On the other hand, the documentary evidence and the testimonial evidence, if you interview people on what Donald Trump did was merely some people say, outsourced the decision of who to put on the list, to the Heritage Foundation, UM and to the Federal Society, there was no one has come forward with any plausible suggestion of any sort by anyone the president. Donald Trump consulted with any member of the other party, and other presidents have, you know,

kept this sort of internal as well. But to say that he consulted more widely than anyone else, ever, I think it's demonstrably untrue. It's time to take a quick break. When we're back with pre Perar, we're going to dig into much more from whether Michael Cohen has flipped to what advice pret would give to Donald Trump if he were his lawyer? And now back to our conversation with pre Berr. How do you assess the extent to which

President Trump is in legal jeopardy? If here were your client as a lawyer, how would you describe the overall magnitude of this problem to him? But those are those are different questions. How do you assess? I think it's difficult to us as you just know what's in the public record. You know that Bob Mueller and his team are full of super professional, smart heads down kinds of lawyers who will bring a case if there's a case to be brought, won't bring one if there's not one

to be brought. And when you're talking about legal jeopardy and the way normal people understand it, whether or not someone is subject to being arrested, I think the president is not in any legal jeopardy really, because I believe that that especially Counsel Mueller will take the view that the Office of Legal Counsel to Justice Department has taken

for a long time now. Not everyone agrees with it, but it's the prevailing view that a sitting pret no with not just Brett Kavana's view that a sitting president cannot be indicted. So in that regard, he doesn't have a lot of sort of imminent legal jeopardy in the way that some lawyers have to counsel with their clients to have a bag packed and a toothbrush, you know, in their overnight bag, and take care of their affairs,

take care of their affairs. You know, some some players tell their clients when they think they're about to be arrested, to avoid you know, being arrested in front of their family and children. At six o'clock in the morning, they check into a hotel, you know, under an alias so that when the FBI finally comes, you know that the defendant, the target can surrender on his own terms later to law enforcement. So I don't think the president is any

is in any jeopardy like that. On the other hand, there are people who around him who are and I think we're gonna see additional arrests, including my presumption is one of those people being his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen. So it's impossible to gauge separate apart from his inability

to be indicted, how were he not the president? How much evidence is there that he engaged in some kind of conspiracy if there was knowledge on his part in what people say cocluding, But coluding is not really a crime, but conspiring with a foreign power to interfere with the election, or violent campaign finance laws, or engage in obstruction. So the jeopardy he's in is what Congress will do. Part of that depends on what the nature of Congress is part of Part of that depends on what happens with

the Democrats in the fall. It also depends on what the priorities of the Democrats and others are. Not everyone is in favor of taking a legal action against the president. Now that the second party of question is what I would do or say if I were representing the president who had this level of legal jeopardy as to keep my mouth shut, I would be more a loot, more like Emmett Flood, who nobody knows, although he's representing the

president of the United States as well. We just see the pr offensive that's not particularly helpful to the president by Rudy Giuliani on TV, and before that we saw the same from John Dowd and from Jay Seculo. Generally speaking, when your client, even if it's a higher file person like a politician or a celebrity or a billionaire, you keep your mouth shut and you do your work behind

the scenes. Like the principal thing that you want to do is explain in a in a sober minded, respectful, rigorous way to the prosecutors who potentially are going to charge your client is why they have it wrong, And not blast them in public, and not proclaim facts about your client's knowledge that turned out to be untrue a short time thereafter. Not to make a proclamation about a

potential witness against your client. In this case, Michael Cohen one day saying he's an honest and honorable man, the next day saying he's a pathological liar and his lied his whole life. And part of the reason you don't do that is you look First of all, you look like a fool. Second of all, you don't serve your client well. And in particularly the reason you don't serve your client well is you don't have credibility. This discussion about whether or not the president is going to sit

down with a special counsel and on what terms. Those are human beings who are dealing with each other, you know, Rudy Giuliani or at Flood or whoever else is sitting down, not with robots, are seeing that with other people, and they're making representations about what the president you know, will agree to or not agree to, or they're making representations about what the law is and why the Special Council

has it wrong, barking up the wrong tree. A lot of those arguments, as they are in life, generally, are persuasive or not persuasive if the person making them has personal credibility. And when Rudy and others go out there and say idiotic things that are proven false and flip flop day to day when a person like that, and we've had people like that are not as famous as

Rudy Juliani. When a person like that does that in public and then comes into my office when I was the US Attorney and tries to make an argument to me, I don't credit it, And that's a failure of lawyering on the part of those guys. But do you think they're doing that for the for public consumption? There are two different audiences they're appealing to. And do you think there is a method to their madness that that people are so confused at this point they can't make head

nor tails of anything, right. I'm always careful not to a tribute too much cleverness and strategic thinking on the part of people who look like they're saying silly, self contradictory things. It's possible, and that's obviously how folks are going to spend it. But I don't know anyone, even supporters of the president, who actually think that the constantly changing statements of Prudi Giuliani are helpful. In fact, I think I saw in the last couple of days a

former lawyer to the president in other matters. I think the former divorced lawyer, who it seems remains loyal towards the president and infection about the president, said that ry

Giliani's representation is a disaster. That said, maybe what Juliani is doing is acclimating the public to the idea of collusion, so that if and when Mueller proves it, you know, the reaction is, oh, of course, we knew there was collusion, just like when Ken Starr proves that Bill Clinton had the affair with Monica Lewinsky's moving the gold post, right, So people will be less shocked and more in nord to this whole notion. Look, it's possible, anything as possible.

But I do think though, that really smart people like you guys and other folks in the public who are commentators because they're smart and rigorous, like to impose, you know, that kind of strategic thinking on the part of people who may just be incompetent. Can we ask you about Michael Cohen's case, because your old office is investigating. I have no personal knowledge of everything relating to that case. But what you've read, what you've seen in the public,

so clearly he's flipped, right. I wouldn't say clearly, U, because remember, two things have to be necessary. Right. First, the guy who is in trouble in this case, Michael Cohen, has to make the decision that he wants to cooperate with the government, and that seems fairly clear, as your question and your smile indicates to me. But a second thing also has to be true. The government has to

want your cooperation. The government has to believe the prosecutors have to believe that this potential target it in this case, Michael Cohen has substantial assistance to offer. Now everyone has been assuming I think it's not a terrible assumption that Michael Cohen knows what a lot of the bodies are buried, can cooperate with respect to a lot of folks, perhaps even the President of the United States, and then he has stuff to give. But then there's another sort of

third issue as well. Let's say the first two conditions are met. Guys in trouble. Guy wants to co operate with the government, and government wants him. Government wants him, government thinks that person has information of criminality, and the party of other folks. The government also has to believe that the witness is going to be truthful going forward, also has to believe that the witness is going to be effective. I'm not saying this is true of Michael Cohen,

but he's got a lot of baggage. Yeah. I think Giuliani's second assessment of Michael Cohen is the more correct one, that he's lined his whole life and presumably on behalf of Donald Trump, that the first assessment of his being honorable and honest was not true. You know, prosecutors put on people who have told lies before and who have

killed people and have committed fraud. We put them on the stand to prosecute other people, but you have to go through a real serious assessment of how that's going to look, of whether or not they really turned the page, whether it's being fully honest with you. There are people who I'm not saying this is true of Michael Colin, but just remember that these other things. His mere willingness to flip against somebody, including maybe his former client, is

not necessarily sufficient. And it is true that some cases never get made because the witness is so flawed and so unable to come to terms with the whole truth that they're not usable. Do these tape conversations change any of that. It would be one thing if there were no tapes. Right if you list the tapes, look so the last, the one tape that's been released looks like it was suddenly in abruptly shut off. And you know, you do have to worry him. Had people who claimed

that things were said, but they selectively tape. Um, all these things I'm about to say are hypothetical. We don't know if Michael Cohen, for example, has three other tapes in which he looks terrible and he destroyed them. Let's say there's an email about that. Um, you know, let's say there are times when he was on tape, you know, spin a false story, so he would have something that looked like it was credible and tape recorded, but was really not true. That would then cast into doubt things

on other tapes where he was telling the truth. I just don't know the extent of this. And I will tell you also that prosecutors all the time put on unsavory witnesses on the stand because that's the nature of it. Right, if you're a bad guy and you committy crimes with the mob, you're going to have the information about other

guys in the mob. But there is a meter of unsavory nous that we look at, and the idea that a guy was recording his own client does not sit well with prosecutors who are by definition lawyers as well. And it may be okay, but you know, I think people are gonna have to think long and hard but how they're going to use a person like that. And by the way, on top of all that, the other thing prosecutors don't like this is a guy who has another lawyer, Landie Davis, who's trying to one up Rudy Giuliani.

Prosecutors don't want people to come into their office. We're gonna be witnesses and then worried that the next day they're gonna go right on television, whether the lawyers gonna go right on television and say, here's what the prosecutors are thinking about, here's what I got asked, here's what my guy is gonna do. We hate that. It's terrible,

it's awful. So they're all sorts of um, you know, thorny issues when you're dealing with what it seems like a somewhat not controllable witness like Michael Cohen, who also looks like he's lied a lot. And I know you can't get inside their heads. But what do you think Rudy Giuliani and Lannie Davis are thinking when they say yes to do all these TV shows. That's a great it's a great question. Look, each of them has sort of the the you know, the big mouth lawyer who's

going on television. Maybe it's a you know, it's a split strategy. But each of them also has a very well respected, quiet, behind the scenes lawyer. In Michael Cohen's case, it's Guy Petrolo, who I worked for in private practice and who worked for me as the chief of my criminal division when I first became the OS attorney. He's as solid and competent and as ethical as they come. And so maybe it's the decision that some high profile

uh you know, subjects and targets make. It's like, you know what, I am my legal strategy, and I got my brainiac nerd lawyer, uh Emmett Flood, Guy Petrilla to do that, who have great credibility with the special counsel, and they do that negotiating and then I have my blow hard guy, and my blow hard guy goes out on television MUCKs things up, look strong and you know sates the President's need to have someone go on TV

defend him, and I guess that's totally possible. It's not the way, It's not the way I would do it or you guys would do it, but maybe that's the way it's done these days. I have one more question about Michael Cohen, and we can take it out if it's super stupid, but he's being investigated for I mean, is Michael Cohen being investigated for the collusion stuff, for the Stormy Daniel stuff or is there overlap? There's a stupid question all I think it's a smart question, And

again I don't know. But the following things we know to be true. One is that Bob Mueller has an investigation that's focused on Russian interfering, meddling attack on our election, and then related to that, whether or not anyone on the Trump campaign UH knowingly help them write what people refer to informally as collusion. And third, whether or not there's been any obstruction and that so we know that

to be true. The second thing we know to be true is that rather than retain whatever investigation or whatever bad things the mother folks found about Michael Cohen, they decided, in combination with Rod Rosenstein to separate that part out and give it to my old office, the Southern District, New York, which suggests that the things and the lawyers have made this point in a smart point and better for the president, which makes it appear that the things

that are being looked at on the part of Michael Cohen by the Southern District are broader scope, separate from the president and have nothing to do with Russia. Now. The way the way, so that appears to be true on the surface, but the way the world works otherwise is, you know, there are humans who have multiple things going on in their head, and so may be true when this happens all the time that you take a look

at one cooperating witness and then they flip. They don't just flip as to the you know, the taxi medallion issue, which is reportedly something that people are looking at, or you know, a particularly uh, you know, compartmentalized money laundering issue or some other fraud. You say to that person, what other bad things have you done? What other things

do you know? And my presumption is if they end up flipping Michael Cohen and they find evidence of a crime, that they're going to ask him to plead guilty to with respect to his own business dealings, he will also be asked the question, we'll tell us about Donald Trump, tell us about the Trump organization, tell us about these payments to these women, whether or not they were related to the election, and that was the subject of this

phone call. And if he has information about that stuff or dealings with the Russians, then that information is almost certainly going to be shared with Bob Mueller. So it's not completely compartmentalized, because the information in this human's head and Michael Cohen's head is not compartmentalized that way. So does Bob Mueller's team have access to all the material that was what would you say that was seized from

Michael Cohen's office. So my guess is, I don't know what arrangement they've worked out, because you have competing jurisdictions all the time. My guess is that in assigning this portion of the case of the Southern District, it was made clear that if appropriate and as necessary, we need access to information to do our own job, then you will share that with us, and you will keep us in the loop in pushing that part of the case

over to the Southern District. Do you think Muller is in any way preparing for the day that he's fired, or at least creating a contingency plan if Rosenstein is impeached or fired. Um, if he gets pushed out or neutered in some way, is he trying to create a kind of a living will for his investigations. I haven't heard it put that way. Let's go away putting it. I don't know if that's his primary considered. Ryan went

to law school, strated lawyer here, met too. Look at us doing podcasts now, Live in the Dream, Live in the Dream, you're not even in the studious managed to mailing it in from somewhere. Um. Look, I don't know that that's the primary motivation for why he's doing what he's doing. I think I think Mueller's primary motivation is to follow the facts and see what the truth is

related to. That is to make sure as much as possible and consistent with his oath UM, that his investigation looks like it's coloring within the lines and staying within the lanes, and doesn't look like it's getting too far afield, so it has maximum legitimacy and credibility and so if they found something that seemed, you know, a little bit out of left field with Michael Cohen, I think it's more likely they were just trying to show when when later eyes are going to be looking at all this

in hindsight, that they didn't agglomerate to themselves every possible crazy thing that anyone associate with Trump has ever done and sent it to the Southern District. It's probably nice, um, you know, benefit on the side for there to be multiple investigations going on in different places. So it's a sort of an incidental living Will you know that that case against the twelve military intelligence officials in Russia, the g r U, that's no longer with Mueller principally either.

That was transferred to the National Security Division. So it is true what you're pointing out. I think it's a smart observation that things that have begun in the Mueller you know, um crucible, some of them are being parceled out to other places. It just makes it a lot harder to unring the bell. It's so gratifying to hear that there are so many interesting cases involving the president

that can go on simultaneously. Well, when you make it a habit when you make it a habit of surrounding yourself with shady people who you who you know boastfully referred to as your fixer Um and boastfully you know, referred to as kings of dirty tricks with ether At, Roger Stone or Paul Manafort or Michael Cohen. It's not shocking that there's evidence of criminality in all those cases. Do you know Bob Muller and tell us about him and how you think he's handling himself in the case.

So far so Bob Mueller. Anybody who's ever worked with him respects him, admires him. He's a guy before he became known to us here, served his country. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. You know, he had a privileged upbringing. He went to Princeton, he was a lacrosse star. And when when one of his lacrosse teammates after graduate of Princeton died in Vietnam, unlike some people you know home

referring to he volunteered for service. Um was wounded in battle and spent basically his whole life in public service. Every time he was he's been offered something to do in public service, whether it's that's use attorney or chief of the Criminal Division or FBI director. He says, yes, he does it. He is at need all these jobs anymore.

And but people forget you know, now you can swift and anybody, I guess you can take somebody who served his country, who is a Republican who has never been mismerged in anyway like this before, about whom new Gingrid said at the time of his appointment. Everyone can relax because Bob Mueller is a professional. You know, this is a guy who started serving as FBI director right before nine eleven, and when the ten year term expired, there

are but three million people in the country. Rather than find someone who could then replace him, Barack Obama, who was of a different party than the president that appointed Bob Mueller in the first place, and the Congress got together and with a unanimous vote, rather than find some other person to replace Bob Mueller, they changed the law a hundred zero and extended his term for two years. So here's a person. No one's a god, and no

one should be put on a pedestal unduly. But of anyone in the country who is in law enforcement, there's no one w had a better reputation than Bob Mueller. Now, how's he conducting myself himself? I think he's doing what he's always done. And in my observations of him, both as the United Attorney work with him as f BI Director, and then observing him separately, he doesn't talk to the press. He keeps his head down, he does his work. He's not afraid of anything, and he's not afraid of anyone,

and he believes in public serving. Here's a guy who is back in private practice, who's know, not young in years, who accepted this task knowing the no matter what he did or decided or didn't do, that a large pertion of the population, you know, is going to cast dispersions on him. And I wrote a piece about him for Time magazine some weeks ago, and the bottom line is, you know, here's a person that that a lot of

people like to pour their hopes and fears into. You know, he's either a savior for the progressive left or he's a villain to the Trump supporters. He's neither one of those things. He's I think, just to buy the book lawman who's trying to do a difficult job that he was given. I'm prepared to believe that he's going to have it, you know, a scathing report. I'm also prepared

to believe that he will find something different. And my hope is that everyone accepts, no matter what side the aisle you're on, accepts whatever his findings and proposals are. Before we move on from the Trump administration or from the Trump investigation, I want to ask you one other question, which is you said earlier that collusion in and of itself is not necessarily a crime. Giuliani said something similar

this morning on CNN. It's July, we're recording this, and then he had to call into Fox later today to clarify that statement, and he said, the President didn't do it, but even if he did, it wouldn't be a crime. Can you explain that concept of collusion not being a crime. And if collusion isn't a crime, what are we all doing here? So? I don't know where the word collusion came from. Initially, I think there are words in the English language. Is it a legal term? So it's not so,

So that's the point I was about to make. There are certain terms that have both specialized legal meaning and also cloquial meaning. Right, um and collusion is not one that you see in the statute, you know, the statue to talk about conspiracy, that talk about aiding in a beading, to talk about acting in concert, but there's not one that that says collusion. It's a word that's sort of easy for people to understand that has a I think you think of colluding with the enemy. Yeah, and it

has a connotation of dastardliness about it. But it's Natasha appropriate example, Kate, exactly who I think I've been indicted under seal I'm prepared to predict that. Um. So it's it's a shorthand way of talking about things that people talk about all the time. In the same way you say you know someone's a bad guy. That that doesn't mean as at mean that people are either subjects, targets or defendants, some bad guys and good guys. So it's

a shorthand that people in the press use. The President is seized upon it to say that there is none of that which is neither here nor there. And now, because it's a shorthand term that has come into popular use, um, it's convenient for people to say it's not even there's no such thing which is why people like me like to say it doesn't have any specialized legal meaning. Um, but things that might constitute in ordinary parlance collusion can

also constitute a crime. Right. So if you, for example, if it if it is true that these Russian gru operatives engaged in this hacking with the assistance of, and the knowledge of and or that maybe the direction of um people in America who are on the Trump campaign, perhaps Roger Stone, who's meant who has alluded to in the indict but not charged yet, then that is both collusion in this sort of lay person's sense, and it's

also potentially conspiracy. So you know, again, I don't think we make too much of this idea that collusion is not in the statute, you know, but they're they're conspiracy statutes that don't have the word collusion. That doesn't mean that things that would ordinarily constant collusion are not a crime. Yes, yes, yes, So it's really semantics we're talking about. And and a lot of people ask, what is taking Robert Muller so

Long's it takes a long look? But people understand is it takes a long time to investigate things, in particular white color matters. These things take a few years. And it also depends on the scope. I mean, you've have multiple indictments, multiple guilty please, you have multiple charges against people in other countries, namely Russia that required not only investigation,

getting information, but but the acquiring of classified information. You know that that last indictment against the g r U twelve is chock full of stuff that most surely very recently was classified. And there's a back and forth that has to happen with the intelligence community on sources and methods to see what you declassify for purposes of making an adequate indictment, and also to maybe send a message

to their intel counterparts in Russia. When you investigate a financial crime, and presumably financial things are being investigated as well,

sometimes evidence is in other countries. Sometimes evidence is at one bank and you get a subpoena return from that one bank, and you see the flow of money into an ad has happened all the time in cases that we investigated, and it takes a couple of months to get the subpoena return from the one bank account, and then you look and see, well what money was coming into that bank account, and then you got a subpoena.

Those banks. So it's pains taking, painstaking, and especially when people are trying to conceal their crimes, crimes of money laundering in particular. That's all about having shell companies and having payments go from one entity to another. It takes a while to peal the the onion. How bizarre was it when you heard that Putin was inviting investigators to

work with It was bizarre and scary. Although more scary and bizarre is that the President seemed to say, Hey, it sounds sounds like a great art, like a great idea, along with like the cyber force thing that they were going to do together. It was going to be impenetrable, though, prate, how could you object to that? Let's listen to this voice mail from a listener who is nice enough to send in a question. My name is Marian Demot. I

live in Spring, Texas. If the results of Robert Miller's investigation shows that Trump illegally became president of the United States, what happens to all of the long he's done to us as a country and as a people. What happens to Hillary Clinton, who officially won the election? Thank you so thanks? Should I answered so thanks for the question, and I appreciate the sentiment. I don't believe that the

presidency operates like um the Miss American pageant. If there was fraud on the part of the president in becoming the president, and that causes him to be removed from office, then it goes to Mike, goes to Mike Pence, And you know, the broader answer the question is, then I think it will remain for a lot of good people in the country to come together, get past it, to try to remedy a lot of bad things that may have been done. But it doesn't go to Hillary. Sorry.

I recently interviewed James Comey. I know he's a friend and former colleague of yours. He would not give an inch. I was hoping we could break some news and AskMen about his actions during the two thousand sixteen campaign, including the letter he sent eleven days before the election. Do you think he has a fair argument and despite your friendship,

do you think he should just say I screwed up? Look, you know he's a smart guy, and I worked for him, and I worked alongside him when he was the Deputy Trained General, and I worked in the Senate. Friendship aside, No, no, So he can say what he wants to say. Um, I would have done it differently. And if he believes that what he did was right, then he has a right to say that and right to defend himself. What would you have done? I wouldn't have sent that letter.

I thought the letter was a mistake, and I think a lot of I think most people think the letter was a mistake. UM, I understand. I mean the best I can do when talking about other people's errors. Who I think we're operating in good faith. I don't think he was trying to sway the election. I don't think he was acting out of partisan interests. I don't think

he had an ax to grind with anybody. He looked at, you know, a difficult decision tree, and as he keeps saying, you know, there was that the two doors, And I mean, I don't know that I fully buy that, but but what I do believe is that he was trying to make the best decision that he could make. I think it was the wrong decision. And I think you can judge people based on their decision making, both on um, the wisdom of the decision, but also on the intent

behind the decision. And sometimes people make a mistake of judgment, which I think this was uh and some of the people can make a mistake both of judgment and of and of good faith, or doing something for nefarious purpose. I think he was trying very hard to save the reputation of the FBI or defend the reputation of the FBI. I think in the longer run, it's arguable that he did it more harm than good. And I think the problem with that letter h is that it was on

the eve of the election. Yes, and you know, I remember I was a little bit of a unique position to know before the world did, what the consequence of the letter would be, insofar as the laptop was in the custody of you know, my folks, the FBI, as we were working with the Anthony Weiner laptop, because we were investigating Anthony Winer for these other you know, sex abuse related CRIMEO, sexual enticement, crimes of a minor, and so we knew among a small group of people that

nobody yet was aware of what was on the laptop. So the sending of the letter indicated a legitimately and naturally to a lot of people, including political opponents of Hillary Clinton, that there must be something damaging, because why would you otherwise sort of a vicious circle. The fact that you wish with the letter must indicate that there's

something very damning on the laptop. And I don't think people appreciated when they saw the letter, and and for their own political reason, I think a lot of people acted badly after they got the letter, um, because it was in their political interest to make hay of it.

But I think one should have anticipated that that was going to happen, and it might have been the better course to wait and see if the stuff in the laptop was redundant, irrelevant, um, you know, unnecessary, you know, to affect the investigation, all of which turned out to be so. And why couldn't he have put as many agents as possible on that to comb through those emails and to do nothing until he had the information he

needed to move ahead or not. I don't know. I don't know did have the power to do that, right? I think everything relating to how the information on the laptop was exploited, a lot of things relating to that, um, you know, we're not wonderful. I'm looking at this a very long Inspector General report on the issue of what happened with that laptop and how much time it took

to ask for the information on the laptop? Right right, my office is in the I report to the extent that you know, we were staying in our lane and focusing on the Anthony Weiner, you know, potential criminal case, and we're a little bit surprised that nobody was doing anything more quickly to exploit and look at the emails in the laptop. A lot of people have asked for would you run for office? Are you asking? Is that a statement? Now? It's a statement and then it's a quizzical. Look.

So I thought about running for a train general and I've announced on the podcasts this week that I'm not h there's an open seat, and you know they're they're good people who are running for that position. Look, I think I think public office is important. Um. I enjoyed having the appointed position that I had. I think there's a lot of good that can be done, you know, I think doing things from the outside which I'm learning about.

And I have this great task force with Governor Chrissy Todd Whitman and the Brennan Center, which hopes to restore institutions of democracy and I have other things planned. The question about serving in office requires first a stomach for an appetite four and a thick enough skin for um, what it takes to get to office, which is campaigning, which also requires depending on the jurisdiction you're in, a lot of I think fundraising and some people can do it,

and some people like it less. I tend to like it less. I think there are ways to do it. I'll think about that for the future. So you haven't closed the door on the As what I've said often, UM, is it politics is not my cup of tea. Uh, you know, being a judge is not my cup of tea. Um. What I like doing more than anything else was being aligned prosecutor and being the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which I think is one of the purest forms of public service. Um. You could

remain independent. You didn't know anything to anybody, you didn't have to ask anybody for nicol, and you got to get up every morning and do the right thing. Some of these other jobs are not like that, and certainly the path to these other jobs is not like that. Which is not that I have great faith in respect for people who throw their hat in the ring, and

I've supported some of those people. There are people who worked for me who running for office and who worked alongside me who running for office, and I've supported them and gone to fundraisers for them. At this moment, it just doesn't seem to be for me. I'm getting frantic messages on my computers. Pre needs to leave, and uh, Pre, will you come back and to us anytime? It's really it's a real pleasure, and I think you should reconsider your decision not to run for office because we need smart,

engage people like you. And you know, I think it's now more than ever we have to have people who have the courage to to be the men and women in the arena, as Teddy Roosevelt would say. Pleasure being on stay tuned with Katie and Brown. Thank you, Brian, now that we've made Pre late for his next appointment. You know, there was so much speculation about his running for office when he left the U. S. Attorney's Office. Are you surprised that he decided met not for me?

A little bit? Either? The natural job for him would have been Attorney General of New York and it's an and seat and there are a number of people running. He would have had as good a shot as anyone. But ultimately I'd take him at his word that he decided he didn't want to go through the rigors of running for office. And and this is really kind of a sad thing, isn't it, Because so many people are being kept from public service because of how nasty politics

have become. Well, you know, and this is gonna be a weird thing for me to say, but blame the voters. Um, it's gotten really hard because you know, if you can dig up dirt on your opponent, if you can catch you know, a politician in an embarrassing moment, the voters respond to that, and therefore the incentive is to to do it. And and politics has gotten really ugly and a lot of good people aren't running for office as a result. The other the other factor is of course fundraising. Well,

I think he's obviously doesn't have a stomach for that either. Well, a lot of members of Congress spend more than half their time raising money dialing for dollars instead of studying the issue US and meeting with constituents and all the rest, which only shows how important campaign finance reform is right for sure. I agree with you, but I don't think there's any appetite right now to do serious campaign finance reform. And I hate to end the show on such a

low note, but I think that's the truth. Well that does it for us, everyone. A big thank you to our producer Gianna Palmer, our assistant producer Nora Richie, and our audio engineer in New York, Jared O'Connell. Thanks also to Jordan Duffy for engineering my part of the conversation from l A today. A big thanks to my assistant,

the incomparable Beth Demas. You can only imagine what she has to put up with in folks, join me and Brian and our whole team, and wishing a big thank you and fond farewell to our social media maybn Alison Bresnik. She is on to new adventures in La La Lands. So Brian, you'll have to meet up with Alison as she starts her new life on the Left coast as they say, Yeah, we're gonna be going to a sprays handing salon tomorrow together, so it's very exciting for us both.

Maybe you guys can schedule a mutual waxing. Oh Wow, I hadn't even thought of that great idea, Katie. Anyway, for better or worse, we are the show's executive producers. Mark Phillips wrote our theme music. I'm sorry I thought that was funny. And a word of warning for the rest of August will be on a summer breaks. You're gonna miss this witty rep our day I do. Everyone. This means we won't be releasing new episodes, but we

are going to revisit some of our favorite conversations. We might even throw in a surprise or two, so don't worry. You won't have to miss us too much. And as NBC used to say when they would do summer reruns, if you haven't seen it, it's new to you, so hopefully check out some of the podcasts that you might have missed. They're all oldies, bud goodies, everyone kind of like me anyway. As always, thank you so much for listening everyone, and enjoy the rest of your summer. Talk

to you soon. Bye bye.