Support for this podcast comes from Verizon business Verizon business, unlimited plants, unlimited data, no overages and more built right for business with this Verizon. Five g give rise. In business. Unlimited plans from his lows: thirty dollars per line, visit, Verizon Calm, slash business slash plants per month with five on business. Unlimited start includes paper free billing without open, select, smartphone agreement, discounts, taxes fees in terms apply five g nationwide available in twenty seven hundred plus cities on most Verizon, five g devices find shelter white band available only in parts of select cities. I this is David Rubinstein. The host of the near historical society's new podcast for the ages join me, as I swore the rich and complex history of the United States with a nation's foremost historians and authors. Listen to for the ages, wherever you get your pod guests from CAFE, welcome to stay tuned.

I am prepared to be honest with you. I had to put my money on who wins in a showdown between Matt Whittaker, on the one hand, and wide rosenstein and buy more on the other and put it of my money in Dublin on those who started Mahler, that's Bob our. He was White House counsel to President Barack Obama. Cherub Obama's Presidential Commission on Election administration long before that I congressional Democrats during the impeachment trial to President Bill Clinton. I speak. About the universe of lawyers surrounding president Trump from acting Agee Matthew, Whittaker, two former White House. so Don began to reducing Giuliani. Amerika can do to protect our elections. That's coming up stay tuned, Betterment is the smart way to manage. Your money is the investing tool for people who won't settle for average investing

Really, if there's one area where being above average is especially nice, investments are probably it plus the the time of year, when a lot of people start to really feel a financial pinch. The taxpayers wrapping up they give giving season is upon us, which means it time to maximize your money? Betterments technology is designed help you make more from your investments. They offer unlimited expert advice, help you make smart financial decisions and their tax efficient investing strategies can give you an edge with betterment. You get constant access to information and tools, so you can track progress towards old betterment offers low, transparent management fees, no matter who you are or how money, you invest, investing involves risk betterment, can be your guide and now stay

tune with pre listeners can get up to one year, managed free for more information, visit, betterment, dot com, slash breed, that's betterment, dot, com, slash preach betterment, outsmart, average. Ok, let's get your questions. First. Question comes from twitter from Twitter user, William crimes. We were hoping to live up to your last name, Ask at Pre Pereira, hashtag aspirate metaphor: what in the living hell has he done Jose there? A lot of questions about Paul metaphor this week and you asked the most succinct version with the proper tone: you. The question you're asking arises from the news in the last day that Paul metaphor, who sought to cooperate with the government, had his cooperation agreement. Declared null and void by the government and by government I mean special council Bob Mahler, because they claim in three page memo to the court has said that subsequent to pleading guilty in agreeing to cooperate,

Paul metaphor lied and not only line one time, but according to the document that they put into the court light on a variety of matters. We want exactly what the extent of that as yet, because they have filed a full presenting random but said basically collide, light again and again on a number of things as it there's no need postpone his sentencing any longer, so what What to make of all that switch it just a brief recap: Paul was handpicked by Canada Trump in the spring of two thousand. Sixteen to be his campaign here. At some point thereafter, when special council Mahler began looking upon metaphor, its activities and financial dealings lodging not one but two indictment against him, one in eastern district of Virginia and one in the District of Columbia, because parliament Lawyers wooden agreed, a wave venue, syllable cases could be brought in the same place. And you'll remember that during dependency of that case, man

among other things, lied about conditions of confinement to get better confinement engaged in witnessed here, ring decide to go ahead to trial in the first case, got convicted. A number of counts thought better of it. decision to defend himself in court and rather than face Second trial decide to plead guilty and consented to cooperate, and then, even after that lied then was given a great gift and the gift is. a letter that would advocate for leniency by the government. If he agrees. Wipe rate and really had only one observation at that point. Notwithstanding his crimes notwithstanding, the cover notwithstanding haven't been convicted notwithstanding. Having put the government to its proof, only thing he had to do was tell the truth seems it for a guy. Like Paul metaphor, there was exceedingly difficult and also arrogant. Having seen how well the The Bob mother team did a trial and how much Evans

Just as you can see from the indictment themselves, the idea I thought he could get away with telling. What must have been clear lies is astonishing to me. you haven't it with a lot of criminal defendants, this level of grace this by somebody, who's, educated and smart and privileged and moneyed is, is not unheard of, but it's pretty anew. particularly when the whole world has been watching so Judging thing I'll say from the very short memorandum is how little defence his lawyers make of it. So usually, if the case, if you object to the government's characterisation of your lying, and the government saying there there ripping off the cooperation agreement, and then I can give you the benefit advocating to the judge for Lena see for you. Ordinarily, you expect his lawyers to be raising wholly hell and to be so Thank you. You haven't wrong, say: look! My guy upheld his into the bargain. He gave you information, it was substantial, it assisted. You

and it was true and you better not renege on your into the bargain and instead they have a very lukewarm couple of paragraphs This joint memo submitted to the court here is our common efforts. Council characterize the disagreement quote after signing up. agreement. Manifold met with the government on numerous occasions and answer the government's questions. Manifold has It information to the government in an effort to live up to its cooperation obligations. Here's a third sense, believes he has provided, truthful information and does I agree with the government's characterisation or that has breached the agreement, but then they say four cents. Sorry, given the conflict in the parties since there is no reason to delay the sensing herein and he asked for the court to citizens in this matter, not, maybe that there will be much more vociferous argument that he didn't breach the peace agreement and these things went lies, but it doesn't sound that way from that language, and it sounds like the mother team, as you might expect, has I'm dead to rights on multiple lies?

we'll topics, and so that's bad proponent of Fort he's? Not a young man and he was faced the prospect of a lengthy prison term in this was his know, but little bit get out of jail free card with the consent of the government. That's now gone, one other question arises from the Is wise and comment affords seeking to withdraw his guilty played, so if he thinks that the government's reneging on its bargain, then he can renege on on his own two answers to that. One is the agreement, I believe, provided for explicitly that if there was a breach, that was caused by upon effort that doesn't give him the right to withdraw his plea that, from time to time, people do try to withdraw their play agreements. So what happens if the court would let him do that, though he doesn't go off Scot Free, then he has to go to trial in Europe

determination that he probably wouldn't fare well as a second trial and remember he did go to cry once and he was convicted, so he still in pretty terrible shape, even if he was able to withdraw his guilty plea and is no evidence he's going to seek to do that. So it's best option is to throw himself at the mercy of the court that the sentencing that will happen, probably in the near future, and to argue that the lies that Bob Mueller is stating that he told are overstated incorrect, but it doesn't look very good report and effort at all, so the implications for pinafore, terrible, terrible terrible in terms of his freedom implications. Rhubarb Mahler, as I've said, If manifold had useful information that could have been used, that's never gonna, the light of day in a court room. They had made a determination that they can't ask a jury to believe anything. Paul Manifold says after repeated lies, is useless as a witness implications for Trump. Are, I guess twofold. One he's a little bit

talk to the extent this is all speculative, but to the extent that Manafort had information that was incriminating of the president at least I'll trump knows that Manafort will not be testifying about that publicly in a court, even if he gave some evidence to the prosecutor's that they can use and a second application is what does Donald Trump do with his back to the big p word Parton, I don't know, some people have speculated Palmetto Ford, maybe engaged in this conduct because he had the promise of a part that makes no sense to me that there are other ways you deserve secure your pardon and not implode. Before a court, that's gonna be sensing. You few weeks so I'll know that any arrangement has been made, I think in some ways, Donald Trump, whose a pre self interested guy. Maybe you want to do that. I favour. On the other hand, maybe doesn't need to and doesn't need to suffer the political fall out from pardoning him last point, but a cursed miasm speaking this allowed- and I haven't thought too deeply about yet is in every time there is talk about

hardening somebody who is involved in the mother investigation people say, is that evidence of obstruction? Will I gotta tell you there, decent argument for that, depending on the timing of the pardon and on the intention behind the partner motive for it. But in this case after we now know that the press kitchen want nothing to do with poor man for any longer it down trump we're in a month can pardon comment afford so much more difficult argument to make that that constitutes any Evans of obstruction. So we are really looking forward to is the Mr document, mothers team said the government will finally detail sentencing submission to the probation to permanent court in advance of sensing that sets forth the nature of the defendants. Crimes and lies include those after signing the programme inherent arranged to read that there is a possibility that that document will not immediately become public, it may be filed undersea or portions of files into seal. If the lies would somehow it publicly disclosed undermine pending part

their investigation, but there's a presumption of having court documents not be filed under seal. You have to have good cause for putting it under seal and then that seal doesn't last forever. So at some point, if not in a few weeks, but eventually we'll get to see and probably talk about all the lies upon Paul told after he was given, the gift while brazen one last thing at the time of this taping, and this is after lunch. On Tuesday there's report. One use outlet the guardian that poor man in the spring of twenty sixteen met with Julian Assange. That's pretty sensational stuff. If that is true, because, as you remember, Julian Assange had of Wikileaks was responsible for leaking all sorts of damaging harmful internal emails of the Clinton team in the clinic campaign in this whole

Exercise has been about what collusion and whether not people from the trunk campaign so have conspired with other people and people who are foreign to damage the Clinton campaign and clearly, the Wikileaks very scheduled, very organised, very intentional leaks of hacked emails and stolen emails, was damaging to that campaign. So what role Paul Manafort had in that and how much of that was being coordinated by Donald Trump or others is of course, of central importance. My caution, though, is at the time of this taping. I haven't seen any other news outlets confirm it. It seems like a big deal in despair at this moment, begbie prolonging any any minute we'll sceptical about reporting sex question comes in the form of a tweet, also from mad pinto who says here's. My quest, the president, has submitted his answers to special council Mahler now, but I liked him

was it done under oath thanks, pre hashtag aspirate. So this this is a recurring question about the way in which people provide information to law enforcement officials. Is it an under oath? Is it under penalty of perjury? Is your possible I'm if you lie my suspicion, as we have seen. The document is that its very Europe has been made very clear to the lawyers that then, that the answers that Thou Trump is giving that he adopt them. and that if they are materialise in them, he prosecuting possibly USC one thousand and one which is the staff

we ve been talking about a lot over the course of last year and a half cause it's the lying to law enforcement statue that has been used time and time again we're not their results before of probably not hate break. My name is Michael. I'm calling from surgery springs, New York and Map Whittaker, see the names of people in a sealed in diving is illegal for empty, sheer those with the president and does he know everything that Mahler knows. So those are my three questions. Thanks very much love the show thanks Michael good question, so if he is the appropriate supervisor and overseer of the mother investigation, and he has taken the place of rod roses time and Bob Mother is not fully independent. According to the special council regulation, he must report to some one at that.

It is now met Whittaker which it seems like it is then met Whittaker canoes. any information that he wants as a supervisor. He can ask see sealed indictments. You can see the names he can ask for briefings on what the witnesses have been saying so far. There is interesting, given in any supervise rule relationship, including when I was he was attorney in there was an attorney general about how much information you share I don't think about mother and his team would be playing any those kinds of games. We ve had this debate over the last couple of weeks that sort of interesting on the ground that Bob mother would refuse to share certain kinds of information or refuse some direct orders from at Whittaker because he's not duly applied There are various lawsuits trying to determine whether or not met Whittaker is properly appointed under very statutes and also the constitution. It seems unlikely that Bob Molly would play that kind of game and I think it would be forthcoming and forthright If these questions are asked but had been all that is documented, there are keeping track of what they're telling Whittaker deceive summit

comes out in the news. Otherwise, because so far thing has been pre airtight and ask your question of they're not met Whittaker, can get the info. Asian from Hollerin and share them with the president with respect to steal them and things that are part of grand jury proceedings which has yielded diamond would be. Writing is a very good argument that would be breaking the law and that Whittaker, even though in some people have described them is not being the sharpest knife in the drawer is still a profit. the lawyer is a member of the bar and he has to carry his legacy in the future as well. So I have deep concerns about whether Whittaker No, we cannot at the president or make sure that the mother investigation doesn't get far afield in his mind and that it is concerned. in some way in a more concerned that you will find subtle ways to do that that line and prior writings by withdrawing resource,

or limiting resources rather than blatant in a grand jury, secrecy violations. But that seems unlikely to me, but I suppose, these days anything is possible. My guess this week is Bob. Our bob was White House counsel President Barack Obama in General Council to Obama for America the Presence Campaign organisation in two thousand eight and two thousand twelve. He also served as CO chair of the Presidential Commission and Election administration in twenty fourteen and decades earlier in a role that has new residents. Today he was first outside council to the Democrats, stringy impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. We talk about things, including the role of the White House Council howdy. again did in a job and who would when in a smaller Whittaker, stand off and has taken the prospects for an impeachment a president trump? I also spoke with Bob that Paul Manafort and Injustice Roberts rebuke of President Trump to hear that part of the conversations

become a member of Cathy Insider and check out the interview bonus on our website. Cafe: dot com, slash insider stay tuned, supported by the new Yorker. The new Yorker conic magazine. That represents the best writing in America today. You further writers, Huron, stay tuned, Jane, IRAN broke Cavanaugh Road. Pharaoh and Harvey wines in the meat to movement and Jeff too, with me live from town hall. There reporters whole people in power accountable to rigorous reporting and compelling storytelling, and they don't just cover the subjects we tackle here: politics, justice and the law every week. Theirs. Putting on international affairs, climate change and the environment, science and technology, business fiction, poetry, food, humor and cartoons,

The new Yorker get you interested in topics. You never knew. You'd find fascinating paper jams, fault lines, heirloom beans, stink bugs seriously. That's think bug story was amazing, So don't wait, go to New York or dot com. Slash pre listeners stay tuned, save fifty percent when the inner code word pre, with special offer. You'll receive twelve issues for just six dollars, plus get the exclusive New York or tote bag. You can choose between print, digital or combo print in digital subscription, subscribe to the new Yorker and read something that mean something. So don't wait That's twelve issues for six dollars and a free tote bag. When you go to New York or Dotcom, slash, preach, stay tuned, supported in part by away makers of first class luggage at a coach price. My family, was just traveling for Thanksgiving and we used our away. Carry on. It's called the bigger carry on, for probably obvious reason

the interior of always luggage or the inside as normal people would probably call it- has a patent pending compression system, which is extra helpful for over packers awake Ryan's are able to charge all cell phones tablets and anything else, that's powered by usb cord charge the away carry on will charge your Iphone five times. There's a t, essay approve combination lock, built into the top of the bag to prevent theft. Removal Why should a laundry bag keeps dirty clothes separate from clean and there's a lifetime warranty if anything, breaks, they'll fix or replace it for you for life plus free, sitting on any away order within the lower forty eight states? So for two two dollars off a suitcase visit away, travel, dot, slash, preach and use code, Prieta check out, that's away, travel, dotcom, slash, preach and code prayed for twenty dollars. Officer suitcase Does this season? Everyone wants to get away Bob. Our thank you on the shouts of pleasure. Thank you for having been so. We have

two things to talk about some things that are timeless something's it? It just happened, but I thought we start with the base. So you're. One of the few people in the country who has ever had the position of White House counsel and I've been practising law for awhile and have dealt with White House councils before And even I'm a little confused, what the hell does a White House Council do? depends on the administration depends on the president. There was no White House Council until the Roosevelt administration and even then the White House Council really did functional legal advisory capacity, the first one was primarily a policy little adviser in that remain the case, IRA, going until about the Knicks administration. Point John Dene conceived of it as A rule in which someone let a small law office, providing legal advice and support to unity West Wing to the executive branches and executive officer, the President, the first most important,

and emphasizes that the White House Council is an institutional. What you're, not a personal lawyer, the precedent that seems to be obvious has been debated. deal readers and various hotbeds of been reminded us that the West where's our written? Did you get it pamphlet when you showed up that says, you're the institutional lawyer, you know now? What would you do? I think- and this is probably typical of incoming one- has councils- you seek out the advice of former occupants of the office for me, its predecessor on anybody else and any other administration whom you can speak with an understand. First and foremost, it follows from you status as a government paid employees not on the personal peril. The president you're paid for by the taxpayers that distinction between the public and the private ex down a little bit, or at least it creates image intentions, because the present that you represent a flesh and blood individual who was elected to that particular office. Having made certain policy their commitments and having choice.

In some one to be his or her council. So, of course, The client that your advising the office of the President is embodied in that particular individual, keeping an eye. However, on the institutional interests, as you advise, the president is a critical responsibility of a White House counsel, but mode. The time. You would think then that the duty aligns and they are in sync with each other. Your duty to officer. The presidency should also in here to the benefit of the occupant at that time of the presidency. In what circumstances to those two things come into, conflict requires. You know a proper minded White House counsel to give advice. That is more for the benefit of the office than for the office holder to particular wasted come to mind? I dont think that they're all inclusive, but their illustrative, one has to do with every president who runs for reelection, and this

while being a pit into with John Dene, fell on the Knicks administration, which is your responsible to the president as a public official you're not actually advising the president is a candidate for political office, and so in those circumstances there has to be a really. strict separation between the institutional and. Why should give any advice it in the middle of an election campaign? The president may be looking for some help. The present may be looking for that is not the White House councils to give the other, which I think we ve had some experience with recently is a president who, as no conception of Government works, no understanding of the role of the White House Counsel and who, in his business life and democracy. Being president Tromp here has added tiredly instrumental in view of the role of lawyers and of legal advice, because he, the president struggle so much with pending the difference between the institutional and the personal role that obviously put an enormous amount of pressure on the lawyer. Let me ask you a question this way. There

It's worth three prominent kinds of lawyers associated with its president. There's a wider council Hoddan began. Now someone you will get a dime again, the second theirs in general, which at the moment is acting attorney, General Matt Whittaker. Was Jeff sessions and then he's got personal lawyers and that sort of of Wilding Door lairs colonel and flood we hear a lot about were from sir, would you Giuliani and others how, they supposed to interact with each other and keep separation from each other and serve their particular roles correctly, its tricky. Obviously, the president operates in the as we have some of the demands that the president may, for example, encounter from the office of the special council calls, or officials to give testimony calls for. Potentially, documents or an accounting of official actions to be given, and so the White House counsel,

sums involved in thinking through, for example, questions of executive privilege. Well, that's all proper Sophie apple correctly. It is, it is not automatically the case that you have a special so who's investigating no various things that might affect the White House that all of a sudden present has to get a personal lawyer that it's perfectly appropriate for the White House counsel, for example, you know. I I helped to investigate the Department of Justice. when I worked in the Senate and I work for Senator humor and was a bipartisan investigation, and the staffers in the centres would go to the White House and we would haggle about executive privilege, but payments, and we dealt with red feeling, the former White House counsel for four George W Bush there was no other lawyer that was proper right. Correct there are circumstances in which an investor and takes place, shows an example where There are questions it necessarily bear on the way that the office was conducted like an inquiry into obstruction of justice and the White House councils going to end up

involved in receiving demands for information from government officials and documents from the government that bear on the investigation to that particular allegation. Now that president, if the president himself, love is potentially a subject or a target of an obstruction. Inquiry is going to require personal representation. So then the question is, how did lines would be kept? Get kept straight. That is a rule that tie played at one point in the Trump White House, it appears that role has now come to Emmett Flood, that they operate as government employees personal lawyers, but there also not in the White House comprising a sort of us- it's an odd hybrid- is an odd hybrid and their role is to try to make or in these special circumstances, that the personal as well was the official or the complex entanglement of personal and official are in practice addressed appropriately? so down again was the first weight as council for president trumped. Did you know him personally, I do you have an opinion of how he did his job.

Yes, I have an opinion on how somebody could make the best case for Don again having served this particular. President, who was obviously hard on the legal furniture retreated a my furniture leggy, like maybe a pet would predators. Yes, and I think that down again and the people who support them again in particular, the people in the Congress would been close to them again. He has a very well known, strong relationship with the Republic congressional your ship, and particularly in the Senate we'll say the damn again made the most of a very, very difficult situation. He leaves office having clearly laid out there for the world to no one. I think this all came out of the west. We generally that he was focused on judicial nominations and deregulation, which are too successes for this administration. From their perspective from the perspective to successes, particularly on judicial nominations, including two Supreme Court confirmation last and second one went a little losing wasn't rumours- are right- was a browser with very difficult, but both of them,

those nominees are now sitting on the screen cord and, of course it had tremendous success in placing judges and district court. Some court of appeals around the country. and then whatever he contributed deregulatory effort on Russia. When all is said and done, the press- and this is of course what we know from general reporting. Such ass Sadie on began made an effort to basically hold the line against. The president's complete misunderstanding of what he was committed to buy? One is on self defence. So the president apparent one point one Don began to pressure will then attorney General Jeff sessions for the firing of about Mahler Don again refused to be a party to that truly positive. For certainly how do you- This is speculation, but you work in the that, though we know all this another the roundabout way am, I saying it was: again, you can conjecture if your prepare to you know making the case for his own reputation in the

or through allies, because otherwise, how do we know this? Well, we know, of course we know, there's a leak machine. We also know that you, better than I do that in these cases, there's a defence poor, this costly talking among themselves and some of these least come either from the directly involved defence counsel or from other defence counsel talking to the press were buying. However, with the reporters are they deal with, but mostly colleagues, I think, depending on your perspective, an infant, the perspective of sort of national minded institutional, respecting lawyers. I take you to be such a person, I like to think I'm such a person, and there are lots of others that most of the leaks about dime against conduct all paid him in an excellent light That does not mean an excellent but paint him in the life you ve been describing as someone who held the line. Yes, I'm somebody, my criticise still, for example, there are some who may in critical of his willingness, even to raise with Jeff sessions at the presence request, whether he be Willie reverses refusal in the Russia Matter, but it

here's a when sessions told Mcgann that he wasn't prepared to reconsider the refusal Mcgann walked away from it didn't put any additional pressure on him, so but you're right on the whole. I think that narrative has been favourable to me. Can I no other came from again or other came from his allies. I dont know whether, for example, there were some people in the know who thought it was helpful to let the press no, that these stories were not helpful and give him a sampling of how bad though stories for him could be who's to say. You find it extraordinary that, if it's true- and I believe it to be that the Don began cooperated extensively with them investigation up to and including giving many many hours of interviews, boats paws on that? For a moment If you and the White House counsel in similar circumstances, would you ve done the same? So you raise variants? question I have to say it depends on what the facts were So, let's assume, for example, that I I cooperate because I have

cooperate. There's no in the world. The White House Council can cooperate unless a Lighthouse Council has individual legal liability, in which case a here she might have to take the fifth or serve to attend to his or her own personal representation and then have to conclude, perhaps it He or she can continue in the job, but lets us for a moment that none of that is true the winners has an obligation to give testimony in those circumstances. So I'm not surprised by the let's assume too for a moment that done again believe that he could give this testimony, and it might not reflect brilliantly well on the president, but it wouldn't do men that he didn't have any reason to believe he was sending the president. You know, a good measure of the way towards a prisoner, disgrace in that case you could see him fulfilling up a gun, an official responsibility to testify and at the same time, believing to continue in the job. If, on the other hand, are with the White House counsel, I thought my testimony would be damaging to the president testimony I had to give

couldn't function, the role any longer. I would have to leave that's interesting to me, but you would, the test them. I would give the testimony, but I couldn't get it right, so there's no circumstance in which you feel that would be appropriate to resist the testimony and he even milk classifieds happen all the time. depending on, and the particular investigation where it's coming from and how damaging the material is over assert executive privilege, deliberate privilege in all sorts of other things. Why not potentially use that is around. If you done again well, that's an important point. I mean I don't mean to skip over the need to make sure that the scope of the testimony is appropriate and that privileges properly asserted or observed. I agree with you that has to happen, but let's assume NASA squared away and their legitimate areas of inquiry and a requirement for testimony to the White House Council by any stretch of the imagination, has to give. Even if its directed toward the president's conduct I think there's no way around it. I think the White House Council has to testify, would burn.

Driving out is that if, at the end of the day, the president believes that the tests, when you giving as extraordinarily damaging to him- and you actually are of the same view so difficult to see how you maintain the confidential professional relationship, this necessary deserve the president. Here's a second part of that story about Mcgann getting a lot of testing. As has been reported it. means that he did at all for the court, communicating particularly closely with Donald Trump sellers in there his reporting somewhat breathlessly in the last few months, where it is suggested that the president's lawyers Giuliani and others. Don't really know what Don began told us The council, if you had in the position of diamonds given this testimony. What would have been your approach?

to sharing information about the questions and answers with the lawyers were closer to the president and serving a different function for the present in the normal course. You'd expect that your lawyers would have the sort of protected communications appropriate, protecting communications with council president, the worst case. Interpretation of what we read in the press, assuming it is correct, is Adam again in his lords did not leave. They could trust Council to the president to have that information, and so I decided not to provided or they provided a very edited version, and that goes again too. I think the romantic professional huh whilst facing a warrior and dom against position advising President like Donald Trump card tightrope? Yes for him, but so what are the other explanation as to why wouldn't share? Could it be that he was not asked.

I find it hard to believe because that would seem to be finally find you find in confidence on the part of lawyers have been hired by present drop in the past to be inconceivable, the Abbe Charitable and say in view of the word incompetence or say professional shortcomings, but profession Four countries, in my mind, are not equivalent to malpractice and a lawyer for the present who didn't ask lawyer to Don began for an accounting of this risk. Open the testimony in the basic gist of the testimony would be, I think, going beyond simply the exhibiting personal or professional shortcoming. I mean that would be a remarkable omission and that's why I don't know whether it happened and rightly so, just to play down per second, if you assume that the questions were asked, anyone The reporting, otherwise is correct, and a lot of stuff wasn't revealed to the lawyer for the press says: hey don hello to testify for

in your seventeen hours a testimony. Would you tell them and when DOM again comes back and says I told them these three things and it takes a minute to describe. Doesn't the lawyer for the present than say I think, you're leaving some things out. You should tell us more where I stood that how that works out. I agree I mean I think if it took three minutes for a dime against, learn to explain you no seventeen hours of testimony. My intention would be up and I wonder what I wasn't being taught and you know again better than I do- that the details and the texture of the testimony is really all critical. to understanding the import of that testimony for the president, do you find it to the another ballistic on goddamn again for a couple of minutes? This newspaper report in the New York Times that, as in others, believe what you mentioned before about Donald Trump asking began to see about firing. Mother, it was reported that the president till dawn began to tell the Justice Department to investigate improve

to give Hillary Clinton Jim coming to me, that seems like a different level of outrageous bit of correct apart the present something which ensued. Country, have a number of questions about that. But let me tell you that software. What was your reaction to that? Their trump asked me and I was not surprised because after all, Nothing anything. They began that he hasn't announced through Twitter a million times at the bank with the eternal for now, investigating doesn't understand is convinced. Cries were committed that had been left unexplored. that began resisted didn't surprise me began apparently wrote a memo he's always talk about that men? Yes, so thank you it is because you know more important, very few people like you, so this very exciting for me In cubic sign for everyone, so, let's age you say the President asked you to make that call about investigating political rivals. And you clearly knowing you, you say you know that the turbulence Mr President, I can do that and you can do that. You should stop it immediately. Yes, and it could result in your impeachment.

Would you then write a memo? Well, answer is probably not an I'm gonna, be very careful because second, guessing people who deal with Donald Trump as hazardous, because I don't know what they're facing a different sort of way. It is a different thing, but I I would be probably very reluctant to each leave anything in writing. That memorialize is that request was made in the first place, was a handsome we're interests are self. Your interest is in causing no further harm, president, who is already harmed himself by saying too another human being to do this thing that can be impossible in some people's minds. Then yeah. You will write the memo But if you also have an interest in self preservation because you dont know later what somebody's gonna say that you and whether you are hospitable to the idea then maybe in a CIA fashion. You would run memo about those things well, balance those are you, my right it for reasons of self preservation. You might write it also because it's the baseball bat that you hit the present over the head weather

you yell at him he yells back at you, the two of you, you in a disagreement, and you tell him the serious about this. I'm actually create a record rights. Only receded lying risk, its much by and then to defy it's a much bigger deal. I guess it for the for the record of historical record, the legal record, the congressional record, if it comes to it in the future, that your White House council who you hand, picked, wrote a memo saying you cannot do x or why and in the present? Does it anyway much more so than there having been a conversation? That's not Yes, when I had mind also that faced with the fact that have been committed to writing it may be that the president not satisfied with the verbal exchange with I call off at that point I mean, I think, is a highly unlikely. If Mcgann had an air, you died memorandum written on the reasons why presence shouldn't direct political prosecution of their opponents. I think the likelihood The expected the present to read, absorbed and ask inform questions about it. are very low, is very low.

So it seems like it was more of a weapon in the battle to make sure that he was pushing back successfully. It may well also had the element of self preservation that you suggest. If such a memo exist, do you think the political oversee it? Yes, I do it when it Bob it may see it went I don't know, but I doubt seriously will stay inside the White House because of illegal fishing, because but he will think it's in their interests to take it out of the building. Yeah there's a lot of people who have their own interests at heart, which makes for a complicated situation when people also have particular the lawyers have duties to their their oath and his officers of the court. At some limit. Let me ask this question, so your White House Council will stop during my term for a moment and talk about Barack Obama was yours. Have you think different, because your boss, the president, was a lawyer himself. Guess it was different. Willoughby was more annoying because he knew the cases often himself and could second guess you comfortable doing so, or was it a treat that someone

who is carried out in the law was also your client. Now, your client, I guess, but your boss. Well, I refer from saying that any of his behaviour toward me was annoying Elsie about not I mean that in the good natured Yazzi, like years, more clients can be an or yes are you nuts This way it is generated extra pressure. On the lawyers to be very clear and precise and their legal reasoning, and to be prepared to explain their legal conclusions because he could call you want it. So, for example, we rode memos for Barack Obama and understating. This is a matter of fact on issues like you, the standards of review the court would have to pick and deciding on a particular constitutional issue, We wrote it for someone who knew the difference between those standards are review, understood the difference between rational basis, scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Now that a a pleasure because it means its. this region spending on. Why that's an important question to address It also means that you're writing for a very sophisticated consumer of legal advice, and you want to sure. You know you really he's not coming

for say so you have to be convincing in your explanations and so that's by the additional does when he forced for the lawyers and its altogether, a good thing for the job of any good, is to say no that goes back to the beginnings of the legal tradition in every country. Did you ever have to tell Barack Obama. No, because you want to do something policy wise or legally and have to people is about and have an argument about it or lose your advice always taken immediately I will not. It was always taken immediately. Sometimes the advice was taken under consideration and after I had justified it, and I have tried to answer questions about it. You, an important point about the role of the White House counsel. I made a point of not giving the president policy advice because I wasn't, in my view: our role, and there are two reasons for it: first, bolts, not the area of expertise. I did think the president needed to explain to him in the closing phases of healthcare programme are the healthcare bill lobbying, which proved

of the Asia needed to be tightened up. On a particular question, I mean that's, not my expertise and why What do I give him that advice or matter even advice about how best to sell it to the Congress. So we were not going patient specials, we weren't policy specialist. We were lawyers. A second reason: that's really important. Is that it? Where's become involved and policy disputes in the West Wing Then there is a good chance that they will be considerably less effective in their role as lawyers, because one camp will conclude the if Bob our or some other White House Council is taking a position on policy disaster. That the legal advice has been shaped? to the White House Council's policy preferences, or is the White House Council consistently being an honest broker, giving the best possible judgment just about the law? and I think, staying on that right side of the line. As an honest, legal adviser Moreover, legal advisers, happily critical to the performance of White Ass Council, on question of whether the President ever question,

legal advice and without getting into specifics. I would say that he was a gracious, but tough taskmaster and one had to make ones. Can you know he's not as any more correct you condition little bit pup ok all right. That's why I'm here, but it sort of interesting what you're saying What the role is, because, if there are sort of general councils and special councils and she councils and other environments depending on the circumstances, see their job necessarily as being the honest broker about describing the legality and propriety of engaging in certain conduct, whether it's, the Asia or drawn strikes, or the appointment of an acting attorney general, but rather as council, who provides the justification for the thing that the leader wants to do, whether it in a White House or anywhere else. The White Ass Council can certainly provide the best argument, but the White Ass Council has

honest how strong argument it really is, and I think the most important thing whilst council has to avoid being. If you will, is an enabler by sir inflating. The presidency hopes that say he has a lockdown go argument for something is pretty shaky. I also want to be very clear about the difference between giving policy advice. Bringing your knowledge of the political and legislative process into good actionable legal advice so, for example, I assume you have three alternative courses of action. One of them is going to trigger major political cities and could result in oversight hearings on the hill. Well, when you tell the President, that's one of the downsides of that, regular option, your clearly giving a kind of political advice, but its practical at means I understand there is an option here, but that options going to have consequences in those consequences, clearly implicate your legal affairs, because, after all oversight, either hearings involve demands for doc,

demands were sworn. Testimony in a lawyer has to be sensitive to the possibility that a course of action could come those additional problem. So I think a lawyer has to be blind to the environment, in fact can't be blind to the environment in which he or she is operating the end of the day. You want everybody in the room to walk out and say that why how council gives really good legal advice and now those which lane he or she is operating in. But what you described is great and I agree with it, but that's not in any statute deregulation. Neither that no right, that's excellent! That's based on common sense! Yes, you know practical wisdom in tradition, yes, all of which can be thrown by the wayside. If the president so chooses, write me and authority the next, what s counsel to come in- and I know if you about the gentleman and if he's a permanent one could be employed.

To do all those things that you're talking about another words help the President achieve his agenda, whether its well considered or not, in a way that he can argue some legal basis for an and gifted where to go on television to support Do you think there should be some institutional way to cause the White House Council in the future to be constrained in the way you described as opposed to being in enabler, Yes and by enabler? Let me just explain what I mean by enabler, which I obviously don't mean as a compliment, but somebody's professional Where was, I mean somebody who does, regarding institutional role and these need to be responsive these institutional requirements? and who sells the president a bill of goods on the strength of legal arguments, drives arguments are not reasonable? That promoted by the President will cause major issues for the residency, and maybe even major issues for the president. I mean enabler is essentially as close to being

Bad lawyer, as I know how to describe it. Someone who's independent minded, as well as, of course, responsive to the requirements that the president has for a look for legal it. eyes, but an enabler somebody who's, tossed all that tough mindedness and independent nationalism to the wind and become essentially a member of the sort of inner political circle and that's not helpful in a lawyer and the White House, but it's I take her entered it's difficult to think of a way to institutionalize that at present decide to bring in somebody here's what I want- and I was sick and tired of Dynamic- and telling me no Don Mcgann writing they see why a memos Hoddan began not getting what I wanted to get done done and so now bring someone in a little bit. Some people argue is what this what's happening at the top of the Justice Department is it your view? The mathematical was appropriately appointed acting attorney general, even here. Potential matter, yet no absolutely not habit is a legal matter. I

tend to think. There are arguments that administration can successfully monster that the point was a lawful one, at least for a limited term. Nakata pretend by the webmaster. The subject matter related argument for this report to the United States, but it is just a pack asked about the right way to align. Fine, that's a good point. I don't want to your site. I want to be obsessive compulsive it your expenditure, but what I would I what have no doubt about, is it not? could have served the present less well them this appointment. This was a bad judgment across the board. It's not gonna get him what he wants. As far as I can tell, it has continued to plead his political capital and credibility on these issues, and any House Council would have told them. I would- What in the world are you doing? What would you think would occur? constrained by so? If you, if you take it his word when he was a talking head about how the mother investigation had gone far afield and it could be starved of resources and that sort of interesting, clever way to cause it not do the work that is doing. What do you think

the real constraint on Whittaker, bringing those things to come to pass in the coming weeks. First of all, I think they've Whittaker has a sense of self preservation if he said all vault it all in pressure in Mueller, I think he's going to end up on front of the Congress was sworn testimony and who knows what additional consequences. So I think, right off the bat. A message has been sent to Whitaker that he should be very care and I suspect that will have some effect on him. I also to be honest with you. I had to put my money on who wins in a showdown between Matt Whittaker, on the one hand and ROD Rothstein and by more on the other I put it, of my money and I'll double it on rose and started Mahler you or of the view that the President nine states through lies, he's told publicly, not too long Forsman under penalty of perjury, but to the public. Let's say on Fox NEWS are potentially a basis for impeachment how's that so far

Well, I think we have animal just to clear the decks by saying, as we have got to the point where we think that the impeachment of a president for just outright demagoguery and reckless behaviour is somehow unthinkable, because it would bring us to the brink of constitutional crisis and the only basis for impeachment is if we catch the president in committing the most serious kind of felonies. I think that's wrong. I don't think that's it all consistent with the constitutional record. If a president is a committed demagogues and the founders were exe felicity concerned about demagogues and were concerned about demagogues coming into possession of the presidency and in the pursuit of just rank self interest, is constantly deceiving the public lying to the public, deliberately misrepresenting facts so that

that President introduces chaos into the body politic, defies any reasonable expectation that citizens have about how the president will relate to them. What the president will account to them, for, I think, that's absolutely impossible. An example. The House Judiciary Committee approved an article impeachment of Richard Nixon for lying about whether or not he had directed and investigation of It has involvement in the Watergate burglar. He lied about tat. He hadn't done anything of the sort. and he said he had It was one of the approved articles so the public statement that was actually a public statement in the end, there is no question that president now has Phil Bobby who wrote this excellent supplement to Charles Plaques, famous handbook on impeachment has said when we look at the law impeachment it includes what passed congresses have done, and so that's precedent that a president can be impeached for lies. That was one. Why about one investigation which the president clearly have self interest, and it was impossible how many licence Donald from full,

on how many materialistic Velasco by recently, peace in which I thought that the claim he's made about the electoral process in this country, its corruption, and that the voting systems are rigged and that fraud has been committed in whatever completely inconsistent with his oath of office is a violation of voting rights. It's an attempt to discourage people from confidence in the electoral process. It may have the effect of discouraging people from voting, and I think that behaviour in the aggregate in peaceable, I'm not on realistic. That will not be the sole basis alone for an impeachment inquiry into dollar from conduct. I see no reason why wouldn't be included or considered eating impeachment is a foregone conclusion with the democratic Congress, or do you think they will be restrained because they think it's a political, not a winner. instead of focusing on kitchen table issues somewhere in between might content in this in the likely next speaker, the House, Nancy Policy and the leadership

turn. On the one hand, they recognize that the public wants less politics and more action on the issues that they care about in they're, going to worry about a congress that is paralyzed by a preoccupation with impeachment. So I think they're sensor they will be sensitive to that. But on the other hand, I also think they know that they have a constitutional responsibility of evidence, services of a peaceful conduct to take it seriously, and I think they should. I hope they do so. It will be an interesting ear to matter what it always asking where So you, you spend a lot of time in your law practice on the issue of elections and voting and how voting can be fair and is immense the intro users, culture, the present Commission and Election administration Why is it so hard for America in twenty eighteen to the election right. Every time we have an election day, including was past one in the you see these crazy scenes of machines, networking or lines being too long or people who are, doing that their votes are being suppressed. How can we can get it right? Insufficient national commitment to

building a durable modernize electoral infrastructure. We simply don't have that commitment as soon as elections were over and we have results that people by and large live with, and they do by and large live with the right then sudden we're off to other things until the next elections are held, we found it. Presidential commission when we went around the country, that is eight legislatures and even other governing jurisdictions below the state level. The allocation of resources for elections for the actual conduct of elections, is weighed down the list of priorities and a number of other things that elected officials believe. Public needs come first, and so, as you know, we have aging equipment, well well past its buy sell date, and we are putting a disaster because we are not making an investment at the federal level or around the country and superior equipment we're not making it. Thus, many in the recruitment and training of poor workers frankly were not making it

ass men in the establishment of a viable pulling locations. I may I could go down a whole list of problems that we have, because we just won't make the resource commitment, would not taking it seriously a white, but why aren't you eat? You hear politicians, at least in their rhetoric, yell about its green, about it tweet about it right about it at the time. It Action in always, every vote must count on me. It's only in the service of their particular need at that particular time. Do think they're on the other side of these problems. So they certainly talk a lot about it. Why do you think they lack the will? to make it actually here like will. I think, because there is insufficient public pressure on them. To be honest, if your trash isn't being picked up, a shopping picked up below fifty two months here, Action takes place once every two years and election place every four years and then event they somebody's declared a winner takes the oath of office and begins to vote right, and so it's behind you

it's just too easy for politicians to blow pass that and that, in fact, what's happened. We we just don't make the commitment the public has to demand more of this and into some, and by the way, there's been some expression public. Will this had an effect, for example the significant x, since early voting around the country has taken place both in democratic control, looking locations because voters have thoughtful Why is it that I do so many things online it with great convenience and voting? Isn't one of them, and so been some attempt to answer need. Can you work on New York and we know how to your well yeah there's any. If he's no sense to me and my understanding is that the New York City man on expert, I dont, vote New York by understand that a New York City, the electoral machinery, LISA good pity to be desired. So that's a problem. you're around the country and the convention simply is lacking. If you could wave a magic, this is my magic one question for you bob our then you could.

connect one reform: whether costs money doesn't cost money that we increase. The franchise were or increase voter participation or fairness Can I make a to do I get about you can have to voting on a national holiday. I think we shouldn't why are people, even though we have early voting in that's helped? A great deal is just manifestly unfair to try to grandma that vote. Into a twelve hour day the different people with different schedules and demands in their lives have to navigate differently in and not always fairly and the second is that we need to spend a huge money on replacing voting machinery and could go into a new generation of forty technology. Is there a perfect boating, is your one now use. L now there is, I believe, is a perfect voting. Machine is our best one that every state should aspire to have. Well, I'm sorry in the school like. I think, that's generally the view that we need a vote,

machine that has a verified paper trail attached to it, right that there there's gotta, be some paper record that you can use to audit the results, and that's it an absolute requirement to be by the way. This may seem a lot. Corky but I'll bring it up. One things that I noticed, that is problematic fervour for the conduct of elections and for our confidence, actions is the insistence on having a media results and I don't see any reason why we need immediate results frankly, because his happy, if everybody United States until we get the technological problems, worked out voted on paper and we gave election officials two weeks it's italian and announced with the outcome was wouldn't kill us. And it would they would show some people well, and I know something we very unhappy about Eighty- that that, maybe that's darwinism- maybe that's ok, well, and one with it- may be that so and the problem of course. The problem, of course, is that you know right now, look at happened. The last time round there were statements, may

but the outcome of the election that were way ahead of the counting of results on the West Coast. There were races that were called for people with Significant amounts of votes still had to be counted and when they were counted, the outcome of the election originally announced was reversed. This fosters a belief that something funny is going on. It leads to charge the vote fraud, it's completely unnecessary and I think we ought to have more patients or the hard part, I think also is with respect to people having faith in the electoral process. Critical in close elections when it's a landslide innumerable by the results, are reasonably educated person, and you know I talked of more educated and smart people. It becomes hard to CERN? Who has the right side of the argument in some of the local races, whether to governors racehorse and race, with its you know Alabama or floor You know, I have my view on who was making the correct argument was not, but it seems

easy for one candidate and their allies to make a claim that they're being treated unfairly because those are materializing after the date or without evidence. Just being able to claim that you do non residents voted, how is the public supposed to make a determination when they read the newspaper and watch mainstream vision as to what the truth is very difficult, but there is one thing we're doing. That makes matters vastly worse, which is leaving partisan elected officials around the country in charge of the election administrative processes. Outrageous, these position should be completely professionalized an independent. They should be removed from any potential political influence. If you had serious professionals were speaking to the integrity of the electoral process and reassuring the public about how elections functioned there'd be less space, for these charges encounter charges that have this eroding effect on public confidence, so that really that needs to be changed by the way. I just have

say the recent years of campaigning for voter restrictive statues, voter ideas and more limited early voting and so forth with all of the inflated now the inflated, but frankly, groundless claims vote fraud, which has now reached the point where the present the United States is joining in, is a disastrous development for public confidence in the electoral process and all the more reason said everywhere else. We can including promoting professionalized election ministration. We have to do what we can be sure that confidence, because, as a huge political movement to undermine people's confidence in the right to vote, yes to reactions that so the first thing you mentioned with respect to you, officials also running for purposes themselves. So it's not a non partisan, independent, disinterested group was doing it. The most outrageous example that would you say, was

Roger yes, that was an outrageous example and by the way I just did it reduces Timothy's ample is about the example. Was the vote, the same person who was superintending the electoral process was a candidate for governor. And was making statements and acting in ways that just undermined at any reasonable confidence in its fairness and, as you know, Ultimately, that became an issue when the concessions be sure the defeated democratic candidate who question concede but said this elections been marred by all sorts of irregular, cities in the way the electoral process was run. And the way her opponent handle those responsible these, while also being a candidate, but even in cases where the partisan elected official

is not a candidate in that same election here. She is also potentially subject to enormous pressure from the political party there affiliated with and that can destroy public confidence in either the match, and many of you recall, Catherine Harrison Florida during the Gore week who doesn't right exactly she wasn't candidate. But the question was to what extent, which really addressing the public interest in a fair recount or bowing to the demands for her own party, too hold the election in the favour of then Governor George Bush. Each is inconceivable that we keep this state of affairs going, so we just had election, raised for the presidency in twenty is already under way there by my count. Ninety four across running for president, maybe hundred ninety four. By the time we get to it. time is short term. It shows what speaking Elections for a moment that we're talking about

which we be worried about and looking out for in terms of making sure that everyone gets to vote properly and twenty twenty. This on these reforms are great that you referred to in your organisation proposed. The likelihood is that can't be enacted in wouldn't be enacted in the next couple of years to what? What can people due to assure themselves the things go well state by state into first of all justice to the to the credit of the present Obama's commission. Some of the reforms that we advocated, I actually went into an implementation phase once the report of involved with the president had there been efforts on the part of localities to adopt some of these recommendations, for example, to shorten lines in Peru. Paul worker training in the like, so we seen some some also these. These I mentioned earlier of of online voter registration. As for twenty twenty, the public pressure on localities to account for the way their preparing for the

Action, I think, is exceptionally important. I will say this. That should be somewhat reassuring. It reassures me We traveled around the country for a year in preparation for the report to President Obama's Parliament Voting commission. The overwhelming impression we had was that and yes, we're gonna, have variations and quality of performance, but election officials around the country really want to get it right. They really do because they are in communities where the reputation are at stake. If something goes wrong on election day, those reputation suffer a serious blow, their frequently blamed very much for matters over which they have limited control, including, for example, the hand their dealt in the quality of the equipment there given and so

I think that the civil rights organizations in the United States have been so instrumental and voting rights issues, the candidates, the parties and particularly, I hope, Yon with Donald Trump. I don't have much hope the Republican Party contribution to the effort they have perfected ways over the last several cycles. To cooperate with election officials to enhance the quality of administration and to communicate. I think some level of competence at the state alone level that elections are being properly prepared, for is a durable, secure arrangement. No, and partly because the present I say has insisted beginning and twenty sixteen when he said if you lost, he almost certainly lost because of fraud who claims that five million people

legally in every single last one of them in twenty sixteen body illegally for Hillary Clinton, which is a quite remarkable percentage. All of that is creating pressure on public confidence and we need public officials, including election officials, some of whom have been quite vocal on this point, to send a clear cut message that just isn't true and to help counterbalance those claims barbarity probative letter. Thank you. sit for this episode of statehood thanks again to my guest bob, our if you like the show great and reviewed and apple podcast, every positive review help new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news and politics, tweet them to me. It prepared the hashtag aspirate or give me a call at six hundred and sixty nine, two hundred and forty seven, seven thousand three hundred and thirty eight six hundred and sixty nine who for pre or you can send an email to stay tuned, cafe. Dotcom stay tuned is presented by cafe

its produced by cat errand and the team of Pineapple Street Media, Henry Malagigi, Joel level generalise, bereavement and MAX Linsky the executive producer. A cafe, is to marry Upper in a cafe team is Julia Oil Calvin, Lord than a vastly environment. Our music is by Andrew Dust on Pre Pereira, statehood.