Podcast episodes, just blocks from the capitol dome. All this thanks to our gracious host here at Georgetown Institute for constitutional advocacy and protection. And, for this episode as well, the american constitutional, constitution society. The leading Progressive Organization and network with over 200 lawyer and student chapters nationwide. All this week, we are talking about what happens after mueller. What are the challenges and prospects for our Democratic Institutions . Today, we are focused on what happens the day of Robert Muellers testimony to congress. Prior to the announcement of muellers testimony, the houses effort to bring the report to life seems to be getting nowhere and we are checkmated. 13 weeks have passed, and the house hadnt succeeded in having a single fact witness testify publicly. Stymied repeatedly by the administrations reflexive and ultra aggressive policy of interposing dubious defenses that Left Congress having to choose between caving and litigating. The ladder involving significant time. But mueller is a law arbeiter, and he got a lawful subpoena and agreed to testify, notwithstanding, clearly preferring not to. So, the stakes for the house are enormous. They must use the opportunity, if they can, to make the American People understand the gravity of the offenses and misconduct laid out in the report, as pretty much anyone of the. 01 who has actually read the 448 page report does. That is a complicated undertaking, with expected strident opposition from the committee republicans. And the overall need to treat mueller respectfully. So, how should they approach it in Broad Strokes . We have a remarkable panel. Ask these questions of tactics and strategy. People with wrought experience within the federal government. Who also know very well the ways of congress, the department of justice, and the f guy. You know the politics and the substance. We know bob mueller and we know the key players on the house side. They are ron claim, executive Vice President and general counsel at revolution llc. Ron is the former chief of staff to Vice President joe biden as well as Vice President al gore. And attorney general janet reno. And i am leaving out along list of accomplishments in a distinguished career in Public Service. And the private sector. He is also the former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary committee. Ron, welcome to talking feds. Thanks, rick. Next, tim lynch joins us. Tim is a principal at the raven group, specializing in government affairs. Is the former deputy general counsel to the Ranking Member of the House Oversight committee. But also, a former assistant u. S. Attorney in the Eastern District of new york. Jim, welcome. Glad to be here. Next, matthew miller, a partner at via novo. Former director of the office of Public Affairs at the department of justice. The former Communications Director for the House Democratic committee. And, i think its fair to say, a charter member of the talking feds podcast. But its especially good to have him here today. Matt, thanks for coming. To to be here in person. Finally, we are honored, truly honored to have Andrew Mccabe join us on talking feds for the first time. He is the former Deputy Director of the f guy. The former acting director of the fbi. As well now as the author of the threat. How the a guy protects america in the age of terror and trump, which i think should be and will be must reading. Notches now, but in the future as we try to dissect everything that has happened in these tumultuous few years. Welcome, andy. Thank you so much for coming. Thank you very much for having me. Okay. So, quite enough for me, lets dive in. So many things to think about inputting ourselves in congresses position. Let me start by challenging my own premise. Have i sort of overstated the stakes here . Does the house have to swing for the fences . Or will a clean, single suffice . How much pressure is on the now . Let me ask you ron, to start with that and then at the house way in. Well, i am a bit of a democratic mueller critic. And i think that the democratics on the hill made a mistake putting so much at stake on the Mueller Report. And postponing any investigations until the report came out. And, i think that they are expecting some dramatic event, when he testifies, they are going to be sorely disappointed. I think the entire Mueller Report is constructed to minimize the significance of trumps wrongdoing. I think it misses the ball badly on Critical Issues of Campaign Finance law, and i think that if they think they are going to get some explosive statements out of mueller, they are not going to get it. Moat, i do think they can shape and focus their questioning to emphasize certain things that will have the cameras there. They can try to reinforce the point that mueller didnt exonerate the president , if the president and his attorney general have claimed. But, i do think there is a lot of held up for what may be a very disappointing show when mueller testifies. I will add to that a little and i wonder what tim things about her as a former ausa. You have these odd look oona, ive heard, for lack of a better, there must be a better word. But in the report, where, even to try to explain it takes about a five minute wind up. Because you have mueller just tiptoeing around conclusions that leave Congress Without any ability to make a kind of clean sentence. Of course he found obstruction, for example. So, he was genteel and a lot of thoughts that besides staying his hand, this left it very difficult, even to try to explain. Tim, what you think about the report itself . Even though that is a kind of departure from what happened . Is not. Actually will it be the number 1 exhibit come once a. Yeah. So, first, do i think they need to swing for the fences . When i used to try cases, if you try to swing for the fences, oftentimes, it falls flat. What they need to do is use this as an opportunity, as a reset button. You know, barr was successful in his misinformation campaign. Around the report. And so, this is an opportunity since most americans have not read the report, to educate the public about the most serious aspects of the report. For Something Like this, report this complex, they have got to pick and choose and focus on, you know, for example, on house judiciary, focus on the most serious acts of wrongdoing on obstruction of justice. And, you have got to use the report as a guide in your approach with mueller. Particularly given that he has already said he wants to try to stay within that. You want to use and highlight the most serious aspects and obstruction. Whether it is instances of the president tried to fire the special counsel. That is going to be key. They have got to pick and choose and hone in on that. Youve only got a short amount of time. That might be true not just wednesday, but in general. Let me challenge or at least ask matt to react your premise. I think there is some tension. Maybe even a flatout difference of opinion with ron, because thats right, you swing for the fences, you often flail. But not when you are down 3 runs and there is, you know, you are in the ninth inning. So, is reset politically, and i would maybe even just rationally, feasible now, matt . They have a pretty good day. So what . Do they, is there so much that has to be accomplished to change the dynamic that a mere reset cant do the job . I think the question is, if your house democrats, what do you want to come out of this hearing . There was a time when, i thought we thought maybe the whole country thought, certainly the president thought that this investigation might be annexed essential threat to his president s. I think those days are over. He is not going to be removed from office of that. When he first heard about it, he said im done. We talked about the podcast before about what i see as some of the Inflection Points of the past and how all of the Inflection Points have gone the president s way. Mueller not making a call on obstruction. Bar whitewashing things the way he did and giving trauma before we can start. This is another Inflection Point. It is one that might go against him. But i think its too much to think that 16 weeks after the report was traded to doj, 12 weeks after it was released to the public, that youre going to see an Inflection Point so dramatic that it will completely reverse things only to another existential threat that removes the president from office. When i think the democrats ought to do, is just try to draw out for the American Public, what some of the reports findings are. Tried to show that the report does show he committed a crime. And i think theyre going to have to be very creative in the way they do that. Because, mueller is not you got a tough witness here. Hes been before Congress Many times in pressed by people like me and ron many times. Dont go beyond the four corners of the report. Dont say hypotheticals. Dont speculate. And i think theyre going to have to be creative and do things like ask general questions that then get the specifics. For example, you start by saying, is it a crime for, to direct a witness to create a false document that contradicts his truthful testimony . The answer is yes. The answer is i dont want to speculate, hypothetically. Has the department prosecuted people for that in the past . The answer to that question is yes. Did the president direct someone to create a false document contradicting his testimony . The answer to that is yes. You draw him into concluding it without expecting him to actually come out and say what we hope are the magic words. Right. So, let me just say, and add the extra vantage point, knowing that the director very well or having seen him testify and not to mention having been on the hot seat probably more times and you can count. So, given the kind of, and when i said he was top witness, its not just a will be well prepared. But it is a real dilemma, you know, whether you have to wear kid gloves or not, given who he is. What do you think would count as a victory . All things considered, for the judiciary majority at this point . I agree with matt. I think that the committee should roll into this hearing with the purpose of communicating the substance of the report in the broadest and most successful way to the American Public as he can. Forget about our goal of impeachment. Forget about whether vocab will be in the senate. The idea here is to get the information in that report, which was presented in a legalistic intense way, communicated in a very clear and simple way. I think the way you do that is by setting the ground rules. Explaining for people, and having mueller answer these questions and a leading fashion. That the way prosecutors prove cases, every crime has specific elements. The way prosecutors prove cases is they show, they present evidence that supports each one of those elements. Mueller left you the roadmap. There are 10 categories of obstructive activity detailed in that report. On eight of those categories, he concludes that there is significant evidence to prove every element of the crime of obstruction. That i say is an understatement. You actually read into those paragraphs, he doesnt conclude, he concludes there is obstructive conduct. Absolutely, he does. Thats where i would walk mueller. He is going to be a reluctant witness. On his best and most cooperative days, the director is not a strong witness, because he is dramatic, or he is verbose, or he lays out a narrative in the way that other witnesses do. He is a strong witness because he knows his fax. He has been impeccably prepared. He will answer questions directly. Open knowing that, i would go in as matt kind of gave us an example just a minute ago. But, very specific, leading questions, forcing him to acknowledge that the elements of this crime have been essentially proven in the report in a number of different ways. Ron, you had a point. I guess, i get that strategy. Probably have a different strategy, which is i think, with the democrats are is, they need to think about not what happened on july 7 18, 17, its what happens on july 18. What happens next. Even if they have a good day with mueller and they coax him to say some things, whatever, their biggest vulnerability is, it is just over at sunset. Soak i think their objective in the hearing has to be to say, hey, there is more things to investigate. They need to leave that with more doors open and closed. And i think that is more about testing mueller on what is not in the report. Not that hes going to comment on it. But one of the areas of investigation mueller didnt complete . What are the things he looked at but did not run to ground . Overall, one of my biggest critiques of the report, is he set the Legal Standard, just the wrong Legal Standard under federal election law. So that he could not establish that there was coordination. Vest is not the standard in the election law. You dont need explicit or implicit agreement to have coordination federal election law. I think a lot of areas where mueller did not run the thing to ground, work with the wiki leaks, and wanted donald trump junior do with the folks at wikileaks. In rajasthan. Thing, bottom line is, i think figuring out, i think the discussion was in the report is important. But whats more important is opening the doors to what is not in the report that congress on july 18 and say hey, this is why we need to do more hearings. This is why we need to look into more things. I want to say, think, just in these eight minutes, we have established a very big fault line in this panel. You are now in congress, and are we going to go for the are we going to go for it . Are we going to a broader because we have to establish that we have work to do . That is one fundamental question. And leaving aside making it the five minute structure, whats going to be happening with. Let me try to turn it around. Okay. I think we have identified, everyone seems to be thinking nothing is going to clear the fence as tomorrow. And there is some discussion, excuse me, on wednesday. And there is some discussion about what will be good enough to go on. What matt would be like a clear loss, would be like came over, see you next season. Really, theres just no more air in the tires to keep mixing metaphors for, and you know, trump can say were done. Honestly, clear loss would be a hearing that looks like a lot of the cases committee has heard held previously where you see a lot of bickering between the members. The republicans are successful. The have a two hour cap. The republicans are successful in interrupting and dragging things out so in two hours you dont get much at. I have a lot of friends on that committee. Probably a lot of us do. A lot of for questioning from the members. Okay you leave with the take away from the American People being, this is a food fight on the hill. Partisan food fight that didnt establish any anything. Both because is a lot of bickering, which cant help, but because there are a lot of poor questioning, which you cant help. And, what you can help, but they wont. And andy muellers composure is legendary. But, how is it going to be for him to be sitting in the chair and people actually, there are going to be people on the committee who will as much as call him a criminal, a cheat, etc. Do you see him being completely unflappable . Do you see him even trying to respond to be polite or choosing them out . I see director mueller handling that sort of stuff particularly well. Its just not, those are not balls that hes going to swing at. This is so straight ahead in his responses, he will call a spade a spade. Hes not going to get into an argument with the question. I think matts point is well taken that the democrats have to set themselves apart as actually pursuing a substantive goal in this hearing, rather than just trading barbs. If each one of these five minute questioning on the majority side comes down to, you know, individual members trying to show how outraged they are at the president , then, we get nowhere. We end up with a swing and a miss. If they can return to an actual substantive pursuit, with each round of questioning, which is hard to do when is distributed across that way. It really is. Again, let me ask you. Because youve got both the hill experience and the questioning, the ausa experience. Given this limitation, you know, they are not going to have skilled questioners actually offering it. What about, if you could give advice, maybe you are, in terms of crafting actual questions. I think it was leading questions. Is that the way to go . How would you actually, you know, brainstorm like pen to paper, what question 1 looks like, 2, 3, and 4. So, you really have to particularly for the members who are questioning mueller, you really need to everyone, as are some this going to be some close questioning, closeddoor session. Right. You really need to have the members use the report as a foundation. And, you really have to focus them on, you know, the key parts. Whether it is obstruction. For example, mr. Mueller, you found, adequate substantial evidence the president tried to fire you on this day. Let me stop you right now. Are you then just going to do leading questions . Or are you going to try to pin him to say exactly what he is talking about at the risk of his responding will, member its in the report that your followup is, tell us in your own words, what was a substantial evidence that you found on the. What do you guys think . Will he tell his own word. Or will he say look, this is it says on page 88, no. He will tell us. Thats the thing, he is not, he is not squarely. I have seen him testify and it not the same kind of drama. But he is unfailingly polite, you might try to say. Response. He will try, maybe to put it in his own. Thats already a big thing if he puts it in his own words, do you think . Absolutely. I think thats a major, at least goal in a process of at least giving a reset to this. So that, if you have. 01 of americans have not really read the report, if you get mueller to talk about in his own words, some of the most serious parts, and use the set up as the conclusions that he reported on, it gives him that reading room. Okay its not, youre asking mueller to go astray. You are focusing, this is your report. Now, i want to tell you tell me in your own words. And when you have a trial, you have juries, that have limited attention spans. If you can get them to focus on the snapshot of the key part of what you want to focus on, and then have the witness tell in his own words, that is going to bring able to bring some color to light to this. Is and he says, its kind of eight counts. But ron, you have been up there. What do you think the ours is going to do . Will they really just scream and harangue and distract . Will they have no concern about how it looks to the American People . This be a moment of kind of dignity and drama . Sorry. That was not a rhetorical question. But it was. Look. I mean, matt pointed this out. The republicans have 2 ways to win. Right . One is that mueller gives answers that are helpful to them. Think you will get more answers that are helpful to people bully. 2, they run out the clock. And, you know, so, what they are going to do is talk and harangue and strum and drying and bring up, you know, the dossier, and the conspiracy and the page. The whole thing right, they are just trying to basically chew up as much time as they can, throw as much chaff in the air as they can. Make it as confusing as possible. At the end, what people say is like, bunch of people yelling, talking about stuff i didnt really understand. I dont know. Click. Two hours. So, they have both their elaborately spun, crazy conspiracy theories, and a ticking clock as their allies in this process. And i think they will use both to try to minimize whatever clarity the democrats could come out of this. The dems only have the truth, which doesnt seem to be that strong in ally. So, you are up there, matt, it sounds like. Do you actually have whats the print process like . Are the dems being, you know, discipline . Are the actual members doing their homework . What is your best guess about, thats again, not a rhetorical question. You know, how is it working, do you think over the next few days . You know, its difficult. The Judiciary Committee in particular, probably only about half the members and the committee get to ask questions in an open session. Do you know how it works . Judiciary in the morning. At 9 00. Intel at noon. But because its two hours, i think the 45 members of that committee, there are not enough time for all of the members to ask questions for five minutes. I assume that they will at the most senior members ask questions first. And if you have watched most of these hearings, you know thats a bad idea. Because its actually the more junior members who have been better questioners and been able to get, you know, better answers out of the witnesses. For example, when they have had Matt Whitaker up, it was the junior members it actually drew some blood. I would hope that they will do, is be very smart and disciplined about, number 1, ask questions, dont give speeches. When you give a speech, you are wasting your five minutes and not getting anything useful out of the witness. Number 2, do some coordination among members, so you dont all asked about the same area. What happens all the time. Even though it shouldnt. Surely they are trying to do that much. The staff tries very much. The Committee Staff tries very hard to do a. The personal staff of the members truck. Was a member so been there a long time have their own opinions about the wisdom of the strategies. I would say number 3, when you start a line of questioning, know where youre trying to go before you get that. You see all the time, these members will go barging down the line of questioning, get to the end, find out find out they went on a blind alley and say my time is up. Be very disciplined. Dont ask a bunch of openended questions. Yes no questions. I to be leading. And boom, boom. Because tim made the other point in your own words, thats gotta be leading to a point. But you want him to give life to the most serious parts that he found. Because its one thing when a member says something, but to actually have mueller, a key witness, be able to say, xyz. This is what i found about the president trying to fire the special counsel. Up that much coordination . You think theres some, there is now an agreement about whether the four or five most important things . I would hope so. Because you have got limited time. You have to make a decision. When i was on the hill and we were doing hearings on oversight, we would have to make a decision in terms of, you know, you have got five minutes, x amount of time. We have got to focus on, in this case, the four most serious aspects of the obstruction of justice charge. Because we have only got two hours. We dont have all day. So, you have got to make those sorts of decisions to really focus people on this. Especially if you want your questions to be effective. Youre going to have to cut through the fat with the report that, you know, hundreds of pages. If you are focusing on obstruction of justice, what are the most serious. Not all. Before that they found probable cause and substantial evidence of obstruction. Ron,. I guess i would be more toward yes no questions. I just think mueller, while he is quite articulate, and as you say, unfailingly polite. I have also watched him testify. He can be, not verbose, but a little bureaucratic. A little bureaucratic. Five minutes, if youre going to spend the five minutes, 1. 5 minutes asking questions cumulative w, that means hes going to talk 3. 5 minutes. If you let us been 1. 5 minutes of that timex light, i was appointed under this regulation and under the scope of the regulation, i have the authority to look into this and not that. Youre just not going to get a lot out of him. So, i agree with tim. Have these things come through his voice would be ideal. Youre looking for the tv moment. Not necessarily what he says. Like a lot of yes no and just trying to get some things out. Just also just say, in a weird way, these questions, particularly in the house, question goes awry through overly ambitious efforts to question about too much stuff and too much. So, i would say to these members, isaac pick one thing. Just one thing. It has, and spend your five minutes nailing that one thing down. That seem so obvious. The chair is in a position to actually enforce that much . No. Nothing. Talk and cajole and coax and hopefully,. I think you will see in some ways better results in the Intelligence Community probably then in a Judiciary Committee. Thing, the members there may be a little better questioners. And i think, a little more focused on communal, the russian side of this in a way that you know, going to be a little more, i think engaging to the public. Let me move exactly to that and ask you, andy. Because, that has become, you know, the sort of forgotten huge half of the report. That again, if you read it carefully, describes some eyebrow raising, worrisome misbehavior, not just looking retrospectively, but looking forward. And, if people really, i think that the short answer that people have given, that there is nothing there. That is obviously not true. You spend some of your precious time trying to establish that at the cost of not fully plumbing the depths of the second half of the Mueller Report . I mean, well see how much of this coordination actually takes place. But i think, ron is right. That the natural split there is to have the Intel Committee focus on that. It is also the part of the report that i think mueller feels most strongly about. It is what he led his own Public Statement with. He wanted to remind everybody about that. Thats right. So, he clearly feels like that has been, you know, pushed aside and the focus on the obstruction issues. It is a way to kind of provoke him, get him engaged, its an area that he will probably more likely to kind of wax poetic on. In a way that will be effective, i think for the hearing. Okay yeah, i think you have to, certainly on the intel side, you have to start with that. That is the mission. Thats what they are there to find out about. And i think it is Fertile Ground to bring mueller into it. Any chance, this is for anyone. Any chance that he permits us or expresses any daylight between him and bar . No. I think its possible. I think you will try not to. But i think, if you asked him questions, if you ask him yes no questions about some other things that are said, and say, is that an accurate description of your work . You might find a little daylight. Because there i think there are times at bar the personal confrontation. We think that, but look, on the most important work of his career, barr really did him a disservice. Mueller is way too unflappable. Unflappable is not the word. But unfailingly polite. Maybe there is your terms more soldier like a whatever. We had the opportunity to do that from behind the podium of justice and he didnt. So, it would be surprising. By the way, i assume nobody is working im going to focus a little bit more on barr. You have had efforts now, overtures to try to keep the deputies from testifying after. Is he all indications before work, thats bobs decision. Towns on. See a factor in any way on the 17th . Or, just waiting his turn to come in and do whatever comes for him as cleanup work would you say . For who to come in . The attorney general . I dont think hes gonna come before this committee. He was subpoenaed to come before this committee, and defy the subpoena because he didnt want to take questions from staff. And you know, i actually dont think that was a terribly bad outcome for the democrats for him not to be there. Hes the best witness the president has. Because he is the person who is the attorney general at the Justice Department with muellers supervisor. He really hasnt the ability to make extreme statements i do i am most reasonable. Sound reasonable. So hes got to go to that committee sometime this year, as a regular oversight hearing that every attorney general has to do. So, he will, i assume in the fall, but you know, i think its a real, to robs point, i met more by the way, in any way to try to manipulate, limit, curb the wings of, any of the testimony. Youve already seen them try to block the staff from coming in. You try to block to a muellers deputies from coming in. He cant really do that if they dont want to listen to him. Yeah, they can. But they can into intimate that the might be bar referrals. They try to block, they tried to intimidate sally yates from coming in to testify. When she came. Early in the administration. And she blew the mom. She wasnt going to do it. We will see whether jim quarrels and care about why did those two by the way . Had of have we chosen who the deputies are . I dont know why the house chosen. I suspect because they were the two most senior people. The two people who had visibility and everything by virtue sabally as the chief of staff. Quarrels i say the most senior person. Lets focus on them for a little bit more. Again, from the standpoint of democratic strategies. They will presumably be much more candid. It might even be, in fact, that they are willing to express daylight. On the other hand, they are behindthescenes. And your overall playbook for wednesday, and both matt and ron have suggested that the book has a lot of blank pages in a. But in your overall playbook, what are you doing with, and what are you reserving for the deputies . Any thoughts . I think youre for the deputies, reserving what key additional information. You know, what i think the deputies will probably be a little bit more forthcoming about next steps. Particularly, if youre going to be looking at questioning behind closed doors. Folks tend to be a little bit more open, when the cameras are not rolling. So, i think they have got to use the deputies as an opportunity to build next steps in a way that is going to be much more difficult with mueller and the cameras rolling. I think thats what the deputies are going to be key. I also think the interesting question that youre not going to get out a mueller, is who pressured and how much pressure was put on mueller and his team to wrap this investigation up, in my view, way prematurely . And, maybe the deputies caught that up. I mean, look, of all my criticisms of mullah, my biggest one is, he never questioned trump. I think its inexcusable legal failure, prosecutorial failure at a historical failure. Historians reported, hey, i first asked him on december 8 questions. And they said, no. And it would take a long time to litigate this out. So, i gave up. And had a lot of information elsewhere. And, one more thing. We still have, we already had enough evidence, which is, evidence that has to be of intent, right . What else could he mean is enough evidence . Sofa look, 1, why did you wait all the way until december 8 . Did you just get snookered by realty Rudy Giuliani constantly promising you this was can happen . I wonder what the deputies have to say about that . Was there discussion in the office about putting the question to jump sooner, making him say yes or no sooner. Why did they decide they could win this litigation . Or that they didnt have time to bring this litigation . Like, we wouldnt have usb next and at the watergate prosecutor fighting over his tapes take a long time. Who knows, we may be we will win in court. Maybe we will lose. Why should we bother with litigation . That was not the decision made 30 years ago. I think the mullet he needs to be pressed hard on this. And the census in the report everywhere, the ticking clock, time was running out, and taking too long. We needed to have this answer. Where did that come from . Was it externally applied . Matt whitaker doj era there was a lot of talk about this. You now, and bar shows up and all of a sudden it is done, its over. I want to know how all that went down. I think the deputies are going to be the place where you might get some traction on that. Fantastic point. Compares say whitewater, which was 9 years, maybe, and much less complicated. This is actually, for what its worth, the genesis of the talking feds podcast. Because, if people would make these live explanations of things that seem so clear to me, this must have been hotly debated. And its that hot debate am aware was wiseman on this . It does seem such an obvious move. And i do think it will be the sort of first count of criticism against him in history. Gives a possibility that we may never know some very important things. On the logistics, by the way, the deputies are going to be at the end of the day and theory. No one is supposed to know. But in practice, we just expect that their content will leak no party has a premium on leaking. How is that going to work, matt . I dont know. Theres a couple was a could do a. 1, they could have a non transcribed interview, where they just talk to the deputies only get whatever they want to. The other with a can do it is how they have done it with interviews with say, Andy Donaldson and hope hicks with a do the interview behind closed doors. They transcribe it. And the make that transfer public. The day after, a couple days after. Not sure see the point of that. The purpose of congressional investigations, i think typically they have two purposes. One is factfinding. 2 is public illumination. The deputies are there for public illumination because they are behind closed doors. They are there for run point for factfinding. Hopefully to get the committee some new avenues to look at that they didnt run down. So, whether they really set the public or not, im not sure how much difference it really makes. Andy, you probably, im looking at people i know who have testify before, but you have probably been on the hot seat the most. What does it feel like kind of, what are going to feel like will he be, will he be sweating intense . Will it feel like to 6 hours passes in 10 minutes . Do you constantly rethink, i shouldve said that last answer . A little bit this way. How is that he is a human being, after all. Not even have to go to the bathroom during the day. Who knows. Its going to be terrible in every way that you can think. Miserable root canal of a day. Its absolutely awful. You spend an enormous amount of time preparing. And mueller certainly does. We have all had that experience. They used to line the hallway leading up to his office with briefing teams. He would have these 1000 page binders all over the place. By the way, people. Its really true. People would go in and he would already have it down. His commands of the facts when i worked with him was unparalleled. And he would come after you in a very kind of cross examination style thats been well documented. It is going to be very tough for him. He hasnt done this in quite a while. He didnt like it when he used to do it. He didnt less and less frequently as he was director. He began to rely more heavily on his deputies and others to go in and take the swings for him. He can get out of this one, obviously. It is physically draining. You start immediately right. And by the way, hes a little bit older, right . Yeah. Hes, i probably shouldve said that. Will be coming after me now. He communal, you immediately start calculating your question and the answer like as they are speaking. You are const only trying to figure out where you are, and the fact that you know. What you can reveal, what you should reveal. Trying to be as accurate and truthful as you possibly can, but youre trying to not to step on things like classification. And sensitive information. Talk about ongoing cases, things like that. He has got basically a 400 page report to memorize and be able to kind of instantly index and provide fax from. So, its a tall order. There is no kind of i did that well. Just like, i got by that one. He basically wants to live. You want to get out alive. You know that you are not going to answer every question as well as you would like to. The period after the testimony is almost as excruciating, because you spent a lot of time thinking, oh my god, i should not of said best ration the senate differently. Will they give mueller followup questions . Its hard to say. I can see on the one hand, the value. But i think, the main goal of getting him up before the cameras, thing matt, you say you think this is it, yet this is the last word from mueller . Probably. I think its possible the deputies will get the followup questions. The others i said, thats your chance to go beyond the report. As a former deputy, i can tell you, all the always call the deputies up because they know a lot, they been around forever, and they are more likely to say more than what they should. Im a perfect example of that. Who, by the way, will be there other than his deputies from staff . Or will be there from, say, the department . From bars staff, from rosens staff . Thats a really good question. Any ideas . Or would, as protocol would have a, who would because thats going to be, that will affect the atmosphere little, no . I presume they will push hard to have someone from, lets say affairs in the room, at least. Not someone directly from the jags office. But i also think, look, what we know about this committee is, the republican members of this committee are members of the trump administration. And, they will make, you know, snake eyes at these people when they testify. And make it clear that anything they say communal, is going to get reported back. This game is not on the level in any way, shape, or form. This is, you know, one side holding a hearing, the other side engaging in Defense Campaign for the president. Socket doesnt really matter who donald trump has a thin. And, without rules. Okay. But, in the actual event, this is a little inside baseball, but you guys are such great knowledge. Who among the republicans is actually effective at this game . And, who, and both committees are the democrats best questioners, cleanest, most able to answer, post followup questions. Who do you want in sort of staying with baseball in the third and fourth decisions, as it were . Matt, you have a sense of that . On the democratic side, among both committees, adam schiff i think is above any of the questioners. On the gingery committee, david cellini is pretty good. Veronica escobar, who is a freshman, probably one of get asked the question, is very good. Those are some of the tops. And what about, i would add i think hiking jeffrey is pretty good. Pretty strong. On hip see, jim hans, former prosecutor. Nipsy is intelligence. And i think eric falwell was a former prosecutor. You get him to focus, he can be ready effective. So, i think folks who have both a Law Enforcement prosecutorial background, you know, val demings is someone else. He was a former chief of police. I have been impressed with communal, her questions from down in florida. Down in florida. Is there anyone on who will even try to ask him questions either however they will do it. Will it simply be fiveminute harangues, thank you mr. Chairman. Youre my time . What i would say is, as low as my expectations are for the democrats, i think its, the most likely dramatic moment at this hearing comes from some republican overreaching. The thing i wonder about mueller, is, i absolutely respect he wont lose his cool. But i do think use the loyal leader of his team. And i think if someone sits there and starts with the 12 angry democrats and your political hacks and so on and so forth, i think its his obligation, and i hope he would, stand up and defend his team and defend their work and defend their fairness. And, callout what the republicans are doing to discourage people from doing the kind of support, Public Service that muellers team did. I say this again, hes not if you huge fan of the product, but i had to respect their service and their willingness to do it. And, i think, if you asked me to predict what would be the dramatic moment, that well might be the dramatic moment, if he finally stands up and says hey, enough of this. We have been so thirsty about this for three years. Every chance it hasnt happened. And its not, it is there are two kinds of duties here. There is the duty in the chain of command. But then, he certainly takes very seriously, the sort of duty or responsibility to the team. And these are all hand picked by him. They worked for 2 or 3 years. The gave up their lives. They did a great, you know, product with identified. What about no doubt in my mind, he will defend those folks. I think he tried to do that at the end of his Public Statement a few weeks ago. I just think, ron, what he will do is, he will dismiss those first 2, 3 ways of criticism. You wont get into like a heated, angry exchange. He will just absolutely deny that his folks were selected because of the political background, or deny that he stacked his team with a bunch of angry democrats. He will stand up and defend the team. There is no doubt in my mind he will. Thank you would just do it in that kind of straight ahead, dispassionate kind of facsimile delivery that hes got. If its actually in response to a screed, that could be, in fact, a very dramatic kind of 15 seconds. He could sort of, yeah, vaporize somebody with his the cool white stair. The impetus exchanges between him and ian gore. I think thats kind of what you can expect. But i was gonna say, i do think it is important how he stands up. Particularly, when you start getting the 12 angry democrats. I think, that was very powerful, and, when you testify before the committee, went the republicans tried to paint this misinformation that jim call me was unpopular in the fbi. And everyone wanted to get rid of him. And, you stood up. And it was very clear that that was bogus. That was a lie. And i think, that is important, i feel for mueller at this point in time. Say, with the 12 angry democrats going, no, these are folks who were doing their job and following the fax. You know, he knows that. Because, it was probably the first thing he said to me when i saw him in the days following that testimony, which was essentially the first meeting between the special counsel team, which at that time, was no more than the director, jim quarles and erin dudley who came over to start get briefed on all the work that we had done to kinda lead up to that point. And that testimony was very meaningful to him. I expect he will deliver that same sort of defense. He just doesnt tend to do it in a very dramatic way. Although, there is a kind of antitrauma trauma, too. Sort of jimmy stewart, whatever kind of way. He is very dramatic because the people around him, went there histrionic, his cool ways i think. Think of clint eastwood. I actually, dictate some clint eastwood. But also some henry fonda. This guy is the whole deal. Okay. Look, normally, lets say that tim is right. Normally, one of the things you would be trying to do is at least set the table for the week , month, two months after. So, if they were thinking in terms of reset and having, you know, more time to go out this in an investigative way, will, does it behoove them to try to identify specific areas that then give them a concrete agenda for a week from now . You know, be it hope hicks . It will still be left with a problem even on a very good day that they have for the last 13 weeks, of not having a live witness in front of the cameras . Again, go back to what i said earlier. I think this is a most important objective at the hearing, which is, to explain what mueller didnt finish, to explain what leaves, what questions are still unanswered. To explain what corners he didnt touch. I think particularly around wikileaks and stone and trump junior, and whether there is a kind of coordination went on there. But other areas, too. I think they have to explain to people why this continues after muellers testimony. I think that is about, one of the still unanswered questions. I think that is most important table setting thing they need to do. I will tell you what is going to happen. Go back to what you mentioned before. If theres a baseball game, the designated hitter here is bill barr. And, what i can promise you will happen is that at the end of the day, he would do a press conference. And he will stand there and defend the apartment of justice and announce that basically, the hearing proved that there were no crimes committed. That this is all over. That the committee has gotten what they want. Now, its time to move on. He will be the final it be before the 6 00 news. It will do before the 6 00 news. The 6 00 news is a still a thing in this country. He will try to wrap this up and put a bow on it, and say, over, finish, dan, thank you very much. And the democrats have to get ahead of that and get in front of that. Because thats the final play here. Wow. Okay. I was going to ask, do you think you have in mind, let me just ask you, do you think they have in mind what happens a week, two weeks, if everything goes well, matt . Is there an actual, the shift have a sense of, okay, i am going to be going with lewandowski, or, is it just like, we will figure it out then . We just have to have a good day wednesday and we will figure it out later . Well, they should have a plan. But look, there the democrats. Well, its been, as i said, 12 weeks by next week it will be 13 weeks in support reporter release. They have authorized and sent a bunch of subpoenas to a bunch of witnesses. Do not times and been to court to enforce those subpoenas . None. Zero. The ways and Means Committee has for tax return. Belatedly. But they have not gone to court to get don mcgann or any other witnesses they say they really want. I am a little unclear what their longterm strategy is. If they really wanted you mueller and are going to finally get mueller. Although, on a very restrictive terms. It doesnt seem like they are getting mcgann anytime soon. Doesnt seem like theyre getting any of the other witnesses they want anytime soon. So, i think they are floundering a little bit. And part of it is, they can figure out what to do. Part of it, there is a real disagreement, i think, inside the House Democratic caucus about how hard they are to push. And whether they push themselves into an impeachment battle that they, for the most part, dont want to have. Okay. I mean, the sort of 64,000 question, not just of this panel, but the whole week, and lets have everyone weigh in with these sorts of possibly glum thoughts or maybe not. What is the actual impact of what we see now and sort of political maneuvering and tactics and whos winning on, in fact, the health, vitality, and Public Confidence of the Democratic Institutions whose basic strength, we never took as being, you know, as being up for grabs before. So, may be it depends on the 2020 election. But, you know, we have this huge event that has happened. And underlying everything is set. At the prospect that the American People wont even know what happened, and they will in a sense get away with, you know, crimes, and a poor behavior. What is your, whats your thought about how the health of Democratic Institutions like the fbi appear in a post trump world, assuming he leaves that an orderly transition sometime . Let me yeah, so i, probably like a lot of us have spent a lot of time worrying, since trump became president about his effect on the Justice Department, his effect on how the public perceives the Justice Department, as an independent investigator and arbiter of fax. And, after spending a long time worrying about that, the thing i am worried about today is not so much whether people perceive the Justice Department being independent, or whether it actually is independent anymore. Having watched how barr has behaved as attorney general, i have real concerns, not just about his counter investigation into the origins or oranges of the investigation. But i have a real concern about what next year, an Election Year looks like. And whether the president is able to have another law corrupt campaign, and is able to push the Justice Department with the attorney general and to investigating the democratic nominee for president. Youve already seen them pushing around the edges with joe biden. Some trumped up allegations about him. It will be just fine. It actually changes a National Consensus going forward. That actually is. I have a real worry that trump, after a lot of pushing on the door at doj, finally has gotten what he wanted with bill barr. And has gotten it with an attorney general who will do it in a way that at times will even appear defensible because of the way he is able to present things publicly. And if he is able, if im right, and he has accomplished that, who knows that the Justice Department will ever go back . They may go back under democratic president s, but not republican ones. We may see an asymmetry between the two parties that we have seen in other areas spillover to the independent enforcement of law. Tim . I mean that is, in terms of our institutions. You know, you just recently, where bars tried to remove the whole team with the citizenship lesson. You had a judge fight back and say, you have got to come you know, come back with something better. This doesnt make any sense whatsoever. I think that its going to be real to you in terms of, you know, if trump is reelected, a continued erosion. And you are seeing it right now. Can we put a stop on that . And, can democrats in the interim, make sure that they are being more aggressive in protecting these institutions and shining a light on the damage that is being done . Because, that is going to be the real challenge here. I think, part of what the democrats house judiciary have struggled with, is that they are in a different world. Everyone expected communal, in some ways, trump to play by certain rules, because thats the way most president s have. You send people to testify. You in the end, produce documents. Oversight in the minority. With the Obama Administration. Mean, it was, you know, as much frustration at the Obama Administration got and they fought on some points. In the end, they turned over material. The democrats communal, that in our in congress now have not fully adjusted to a world where you have a president that functions more like a mob boss, who has every flunky around him that was willing to do whatever it takes to shut things down. And we will say no. The struggle for democrats, what do we do . So, it is adjusting to a new world. And thats what i think is the challenge that we are seeing now. Wrong . I mean, i agree with whats been said. I do think kind of our democratic norms are on the ballot in 2020. Were going to make a real fundamental decision as a country. If trump gets four more years, and continues to go down the path he is, ideas like an independent Justice Department if angela is insulated from politics will be eroded i think beyond comprehension and beyond measure. Its crazy to me that attorney general sessions is the good old days. Truly crazy. And so, four more years of this , five more years of this, its hard to imagine. But its also a second way even at the democratics the democrats win, the question will be what the democrats do in return . Will they restore these norms . Or practice trump is in from the left. I think those are hard and difficult questions, and i think, we, a lot of what we believe to have been fixed, or what i believed in the course of my 25 years in politics and policy, i believe to be kind of fixed beacons of how the system works, and how the Justice Department works have been torn apart the past three years. And its just not clear what it set back together or whether or not that gets put back together. I feel strongly is the rest of the panel it about the damage thats been done to the system. To doj and certainly to the fbi. Just, it is extraordinary, and all indications are worse for the future. One way that we can, somebodys got to stand up and defend these organizations. One way that can be done is by communicating what is in that report. What, communicating it more effectively than molybdic. We start, we are in a country right now, where informed, plugged in, engaged political people are going to town halls of the representatives and walking out saying, i didnt know that the report said anything bad about the president. So, somehow, we have got to rectify the fact that we are sitting on this massive evidence. If not, the greatest report in the well. And all kinds of ways i think it couldve been better as well. But lets at least use what we have, and thats what the democrats should be trying to accomplish next week. Im income i will just say, you have to hope and believe that if the American People really understood the kinds of steaks that these last four answers present, that the solid majority of them would see this as important and want to push back. And among the more vexing aspects of these last few years is not simply hes gotten away with it, but the apparent indifference, or even ignorance about all thats happening. Okay. On that cheery note, i want to thank very much. Its been a great discussion, really. Matt, jim, ron and andy. Thank you so much. [ applause ] so, as i have said, look, if you like what you have heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to talking feds podcast on apple podcast. Or wherever they get the podcast. And please take a moment to rate and review this podcast. You can follow us on twitter, talking feds pod, to find out about future episodes and other feds related content. You can also check us out on the web at talking feds. Com where we have full episodes transcripts. Thank you for tuning in. And well, maybe worry. But as long as you need answers, the beds, at least, will keep talking. [ applause ] you have got and we take a moment or two . Does anybody have any questions for anyone. I think we have time for a couple. So, a double question, maybe. Will we ever find out what happened to the counterintelligence investigation . You might not. You might not. Most counterintelligence investigations dont come, you know, get aired out in the light of day. I, of course, dont know whats happening with that now. I would expect that lingering counterintelligence concerns are still being followed up by the fbi, which was the case when i was there, even during the pendency of the special counsel team. By definition, those cases are conducted in a classified context that is designed to protect sources and methods and things like that. Thank you. One more . That was a fascinating talk. Does anyone think that there is value in a line of questioning related to the llc memo up to and including in your fundamental fairness concerns, would you have charge the president . That seems like, to continue the analogy, either a casey at the batter a natural moment. That too big a risk to take . I dont think its a huge risk. I think it would be the best, maybe single best answer that could happen. I just dont see it happening. Is not going to answer, i dont think. But you know, as it is a 32nd time. So, say we didnt even get to that question and we didnt consider the question because the memo, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate about that here. Although that said, one of the reasons when you read carefully, that i think you did conclude, it just doesnt seem what prosecutors do. They actually came in, oh yeah, were almost across the finish line. But dont even think about it anymore. Because we have this memo. Its quite likely they went to the whole analysis. Thats what they do. And then the memo, memo, you know, was overlain. And that would be great to know if it with a fax. But again, i dont think we will know. Anyone else . Thanks everyone. Thank you. [ applause ] this weekend on book tv. Saturday at 8 55 p. M. Eastern. Author talks about the global back last against immigrants. In his book, this land is our land. I am for most migrants. Destiny. I got orders. When asked, what are you . The difference between refugee or migrant or economic migrant, you know, can mean literally the difference between life and death. That sunday, and 9 00 easter on afterward, in their new book, justice on trial, the federalists, Molly Hemingway and Judicial Crisis Networks carry severino examined the confirmation of Supreme Court justice, brett kavanagh. And the future of the court. They are interviewed by Los Angeles Times Supreme Court Court Correspondent david savage. We are trying to figure out in talking to these people, who was kind of a very different judge kavanagh and moss mcallen that week when he did an interview. Has much more to stick approach. And on thursday when he really came out strong, and it was fascinating to learn that, in fact, that was the person he really had been early on as the court has become more political in its decisionmaking. When it makes, when it makes law, rather than interpreting the law as it is written, that creates a very political situation. It is not altogether surprising that it becomes, that the process itself becomes more political. At 11 00 eastern time, cbs news legal analyst t raley as her guide to the understanding of reading of u. S. Constitution. And they her new book how to read the constitution and why. So, question i get a lot on television and in regular conversation is, can he do that . Can the president do that . And my answer is, thats the wrong question. The question is, if he does that, and we have had up until now, president s who dont cross certain boundaries, what is the consequence . What other processes for holding a president accountable . Watch tv every weekend on c span 2. Cspan 3 Leadership Survey taken between 2020 17, Woodrow Wilson drops from 6th to 11th place and bill clinton rises from 21st to the 15th spot. What is your favorite president right . Learn that and more about the lives of leadership skills of the 44 chief executives, on c span, the president s. Great vacation reading. Available wherever books are sold, or at cspan. Org the president. On cspan3. The house Judiciary Committee met last week to decide whether to subpoena white house officials about the trump administrations family separation policy at the u. S. mexico border and also the committees ongoing obstruction of justice investigation relating to the mueller probe. The Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to issue the subpoenas. Judiciary committee will please come to order. A your up being present without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess tennessee. Pursuant to Committee Rule 2 and house rule 11 claus 2. The chairman may postpone further proegtd on the question
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.