Transcripts For CSPAN3 Former FBI Acting Director Others Pr

Mr. Mccabe spoke to the talking feds podcast hosted by the American Constitution Society and the georgetown law school. Welcome back to talking feds, a prosecutors round table that brings together prominent former federal officials for a dynamic discussion of the most important legal topics of the day. Im harry litman. We are here in washington, d. C. Live to tape a series of podcast episodes just blocks from the capitol dome. All thanks to georgetown Laws Institute for constitutional advocacy and protection and the American Constitution Society, the leading progressive organize and network with over 200 lawyer and student chapters nationwide. All this week were talking about what happens after mueller, what are the challenges and prospects for our Democratic Institutions. Today were focused on what happens the day of Robert Muellers testimony to congress. Prior to the announcement of muellers testimony, the houses evident to bring t effort to bring the report to life seemed to be getting nowhere. 13 weeks had passed and the house hand succeeded in having a single fact witness publicly, stymied repeatedly by the administrations reflexive and ultra aggressive policy of interposing dubious defenses that Left Congress having to choose between caving and litiga litigating, the latter involving significant time. But mueller is a law abider 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 whos actually read the 448page report does. Thats a complicated undertaking with expectant strident so how should they approach it in Broad Strokes . We have a remarkable panel to address these questions of tactics and strategy, people with broad experience within the federal government who also know very well the ways of congress, the department of justice and the fbi, who know the politics and the substance, who know bob mueller and who know the key players on the house side. They are ron clean, executive Vice President and 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 im leaving out a long list of accomplishments. Hes also the former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary committee. Ron, welcome to talking fed. Thanks. Next tim lynch joins us, a principal at the raven group, hes the former deputy 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. Tim, welcome. Glad to be here. Next, matthew miller, a novo former Communications Director for the House Democratic committee and a charter member of the talking feds podcast but its especially good to have him here today. Matt, thanks for coming. Great to be here in person. Finally were truly honored to have Andrew Mccabe join us on talking feds for the first time. Hes the former Deputy Director of the fbi, the former acting director of the fbi as well as now the author of the threat, how the fbi protects america in the age of terror and trump, which i think will be must reading not just now but in the future as we try to dissect everything that has happened in these tumultuous years. Thanks for coming. Thanks for having me. Lets dive in. So many things to think about in putting ourselves in congresss 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 them now . Let me ask you ron to start and then anyone else weigh in. Im a bit of a democratic mueller critic. I think that the democrats on the hill made a mistake in putting so much at stake on the Mueller Report, in postponing any investigations until the report came out. I think if theyre expecting some dramatic intent when he testifies i think theyre going to be sorely disappointed. I think it miss the ball badly on Critical Issues of Campaign Finance law. If they think theyre going to get some explosive statements out of mueller, theyre not going to get it. Look, i do think they can shape and focus their questioning to emphasize certain things. They will have the cameras there. They can try to reinforce the point that mueller didnt exonerate the president , as the president and his attorney general have claimed. But i do think there is a lot of buildup for what may be a very disappointing show when mueller testifies. Ill add to that a little. I wonder what timothys about that as a former ausa. You have these odd lacuna in the report where even to explain it takes about a fiveminute windup because you have mueller tiptoeing around conclusions that leave Congress Without any ability to make a clean sentence, of course he found obstruction for example. So he was genteel in a lot of spots that besides staying his hand just left it very difficult even to try to explain. Tim, what do you think about the report itself, even though thats a kind of departure from well, its not. It actually will be the number one exhibit come wednesday. Do i think they need to swing for the fences . No. When i used to try cases, if you try to swing for the fence, oftentimes it falls flat. They need to use this opportunity as a reset button. You know, barr was successful in his Misinformation Campaign around the report. So this is an opportunity since most americans havent read the report to educate the public about the most serious aspects of the report. For Something Like this, a report this complex, theyve got to pick and choose and focus on, you know, for example on house judiciary, focus on the most serious aspects of wrongdoing on obstruction of justice. And youve got to use the report as a guide in your approach with mueller, particularly given that hes already said he wants to try to stay within that. You want to use and highlight the most serious aspects and obstruction, whether its instances that the president tried to fire the special counsel. I think thats going to be key. Theyve got to pick and choose and hone in on that. Youve only got a short amount of time, five minutes. Let me ask matt to react to your premise. I think theres some tension, maybe even a flatout difference of opinion with ron. Thats right, you swing for the fences, you often flail. But not down three runs and were 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. Is there so much that has to be accomplished wednesday to change the dynamic that a mere reset cant do the job . I think the question is if youre 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 this investigation might be an existential threat to his presidency. I think those days are over. I think thats done. When he first heard about it, he said, im done. Weve talked on this podcast before about what i see as some of the Inflection Points in the past and how all the Inflection Points have gone the president s way, mueller not making a call on obstruction, barr whitewashing things and giving trump a fourweek head start. This is another Inflection Point. I think its too much to think that 16 weeks after the report was turned into doj, 12 weeks after it was released to the public that youre going to see an Inflection Point so dramatic that its going to completely reverse things and lead to another existential threat that removes the president from office. What i think the democrats ought to do is just try to draw out for the American Public what some of the reports findings are and try to show that the report does show he committed a crime. Youve got a tough witness. Hes been before Congress Many times. Hes been prepped by people like me and ron many times. Dont go beyond the four corners of the report, dont take hypotheticals, dont speculate. Theyre going to have to be creative and ask general questions that then get to specifics. You start by saying, is it a crime 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 hypothetical. Has the department prosecuted that in the past . The answer is yes. Nice pivot. Did the president create someone to create a false document . The answer to that is yes. So you draw him in without hoping hell come out and say the magic words. Having seen him testify and having been on the hot seat probably more times than you can count. When i said hes a tough witness, its not just that hell be well prepared. Its a real dilemma whether you have to wear kidd gloves or not given who he is. I agree with matt. I think that the committee should roll into this hearing with a purpose of communicating the substance of the report in the broadest and most accessible way to the American Public as they can. Forget about articles of impeachment, forget about the vote count in the senate. The idea here is to get the information in that report which was presented in a legalistic and dense 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 in a leading fashion that the way prosecutors prove cases, every crime has specific elements. The way prosecutors prove cases is they present evidence that supports each one of those elements. Mueller left you the road map. There are ten 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 that crime of obstruction. That id say is an understatement. You actually read into those paragraphs. He concludes theres obstructive conduct. Absolutely. Thats where i would walk mueller. He is going to be a reluctant witness. On his best and most cooperative days hes not a strong witness because hes dramatic or verbose. Hes a strong witness because he knows his facts. Hes been impeccably prepared. Knowing that, i would go in as matt gave us an example with 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. I probably have a different strategy, which is i think where the democrats are is they need to think about not what happens on july 17th but what happens on july 18th, so what happens next. Even if they have a good day with mueller and they coax him to say some things, their biggest vulnerability is its just over at sunset. I think their objective in the hearing has to be to say, hey, theres more things to investigate. They need to leave that with more doors open than closed. Thats testing mueller on whats not in the report. Not that hes going to comment on it, but what are the areas of investigation mueller didnt complete, what are the things he looked at but didnt run to ground. One of my biggest critiques of report is he set the Legal Standard, its just the wrong Legal Standard under federal election law. He could not establish there was coordination. Thats not the standard under federal election law. I think there are a lot of areas where mueller didnt run the thing to ground. On the work with wikileaks and what did donald trump jr. Do with wikileaks and roger stone. I think this discussion of whats in the report is important, but whats more important is opening the doors to whats not in the report that congress on july 18th can say hey this is why we need to do more hearings, this is why we need to look into more things. Just this eight minutes we have established a very big fault line on this panel. Are we going to go for the four corners or are we going to go broader . That is one fundamental question and leaving aside whos making it, the fiveminute structure, whats going to be happening with the republicans. Let me try to turn it around. Okay. Everybody seems to be thinking nothings going to clear the fences tomorrow and theres some discussion about what will be good enough to go on. What would be like a clear loss, like game over, see you next season, really theres just no more air in the tires to keep mixing metaphors and, you know, trump can say were done . Honestly a clear loss would be a hearing that looks like a lot of these hearings before this committee hearing. You have a twohour cap on this hearing. The republicans are successful in interrupting and dragging things out so in the two hours you dont get that many questions asked. I have a lot of friends on that committee. A lot of poor questioning from the members. So you leave with the takeaway from the American People being this is a partisan food fight that didnt establish anything because theres a lot of poor questioning. Andy muellers composure is legendary. Hows it going to be for him to be sitting in the chair and there are going to be people on the committee who will as much as call him a criminal, a cheat, et cetera. Do you see him being completely unflappable . Do you see him even trying to respond and polite or tuning him out . I see director mueller handling that sort of stuff particularly well. Those are not balls that hes going to swing at. Hes so straight ahead in his responses. Hell call a spade a spade, but hes not going to get into an argument with the questioner. 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 tradie ining barbs. Given this limitation, what about if you could give advise, and maybe you are, in terms of crafting actual questions . I think it was andy talked about leading questions. Is that the way to go . How would you actually brainstorm like pen to paper what question one looks like, two, three and four . So you really have to particularly for the members who are questioning mueller, you really which is everyone. So theres going to be some closed door session after. Okay. You really need to have the members use the report as a foundation and you really have to focus them on the key parts, you know, whether its obstruction. For example, mr. Mueller, you found and i quote substantial that he was the president tried to fire you on this day. Thats perfect. Let me stop you right now. Are you then just going to do a leading question . Are you going to try to pin him to say exactly what hes talking about at the risk of his responding, well, its in the report. So your followup is tell us in your own words what was the substantial evidence you found on that . Will he tell in his own words . Absolutely. Thats the thing. Hes not squirrely. Ive seen him testify and it hasnt been the same kind of drama but hes unfailingly polite or responsive. Hell try maybe to put it in his own words. Thats already a big thing, dont you think . Absolutely. 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 havent really read the report, if you get mule toeller to talk about s own words some of the most serious parts, it gives him that breathing room. Youre focusing this is your report, now i want you to tell me in your own words. You have a trial, you have juries that have limited attention span. If you can get them to focus on the snapshot of the key part and have the witness tell in his own words, thats going to bring some color to life to this. Thats true. Ron, youve been up there. What do you think the rs are going to do . Will they scream and harangue and distract . Will they have no concern about how it looks to the American People that this be a moment of kind of dignity and drama . Yikes. That wasnt a rhetorical question. No, but it was. Matt pointed this out. The republicans have two ways to win, right . One is that mueller gives answers that are helpful to them. I think he will give more answers that are helpful than people believe. And two, they run out the clock. So what theyre going to do is talk and harangue and strum and drang and bring up the dossier and the conspiracy, the whole thing. Theyre going to try 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 so at the end what people say is a bunch of people yelling, talking about a bunch of stuff, i dont know. You know, click, two hours. So they have both their elaborately spun crazy conspiracy theories and a ticking clock as their allies in this process. I think they will use both to try to minimize whatever clarity the democrats could come out of this. The poor democrats only have the truth, which doesnt seem to be that strong an ally. Youre up there, matt, it sounds like. Whats the prep process like . Are the dems being disciplined . Are the actual members doing their homework . Whats your best guess . Thats, again, not a rhetorical question. How is it working over the next few days . Its difficult. The Judiciary Committee in particular, probably only about half the members on that committee are going to get to ask questions. Judiciary in the morning, oversight in the afternoon . Judicial at 9, intel at noon. Because its two hours, there are 45 members of that committee, theres not enough time. I assume theyll let the most senior members ask first. Its actually the more junior members who have been better questioners. For example, when theyve had m American Constitution Society<\/a> and the georgetown law school. Welcome back to talking feds, a prosecutors round table that brings together prominent former federal officials for a dynamic discussion of the most important legal topics of the day. Im harry litman. We are here in washington, d. C. Live to tape a series of podcast episodes just blocks from the capitol dome. All thanks to georgetown Laws Institute<\/a> for constitutional advocacy and protection and the American Constitution Society<\/a>, the leading progressive organize and network with over 200 lawyer and student chapters nationwide. All this week were talking about what happens after mueller, what are the challenges and prospects for our Democratic Institutions<\/a>. Today were focused on what happens the day of Robert Muellers<\/a> testimony to congress. Prior to the announcement of muellers testimony, the houses evident to bring t effort to bring the report to life seemed to be getting nowhere. 13 weeks had passed and the house hand succeeded in having a single fact witness publicly, stymied repeatedly by the administrations reflexive and ultra aggressive policy of interposing dubious defenses that Left Congress<\/a> having to choose between caving and litiga litigating, the latter involving significant time. But mueller is a law abider 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<\/a> understand the gravity of the offenses and misconduct laid out in the report as pretty much anyone of the. 01 whos actually read the 448page report does. Thats a complicated undertaking with expectant strident so how should they approach it in Broad Strokes<\/a> . We have a remarkable panel to address these questions of tactics and strategy, people with broad experience within the federal government who also know very well the ways of congress, the department of justice and the fbi, who know the politics and the substance, who know bob mueller and who know the key players on the house side. They are ron clean, executive Vice President<\/a> and counsel at revolution llc. Ron is the former chief of staff to Vice President<\/a> joe biden as well as Vice President<\/a> al gore and attorney general janet reno and im leaving out a long list of accomplishments. Hes also the former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary<\/a> committee. Ron, welcome to talking fed. Thanks. Next tim lynch joins us, a principal at the raven group, hes the former deputy counsel to the Ranking Member<\/a> of the House Oversight<\/a> committee but also a former assistant u. S. Attorney in the Eastern District<\/a> of new york. Tim, welcome. Glad to be here. Next, matthew miller, a novo former Communications Director<\/a> for the House Democratic<\/a> committee and a charter member of the talking feds podcast but its especially good to have him here today. Matt, thanks for coming. Great to be here in person. Finally were truly honored to have Andrew Mccabe<\/a> join us on talking feds for the first time. Hes the former Deputy Director<\/a> of the fbi, the former acting director of the fbi as well as now the author of the threat, how the fbi protects america in the age of terror and trump, which i think will be must reading not just now but in the future as we try to dissect everything that has happened in these tumultuous years. Thanks for coming. Thanks for having me. Lets dive in. So many things to think about in putting ourselves in congresss 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 them now . Let me ask you ron to start and then anyone else weigh in. Im a bit of a democratic mueller critic. I think that the democrats on the hill made a mistake in putting so much at stake on the Mueller Report<\/a>, in postponing any investigations until the report came out. I think if theyre expecting some dramatic intent when he testifies i think theyre going to be sorely disappointed. I think it miss the ball badly on Critical Issues<\/a> of Campaign Finance<\/a> law. If they think theyre going to get some explosive statements out of mueller, theyre not going to get it. Look, i do think they can shape and focus their questioning to emphasize certain things. They will have the cameras there. They can try to reinforce the point that mueller didnt exonerate the president , as the president and his attorney general have claimed. But i do think there is a lot of buildup for what may be a very disappointing show when mueller testifies. Ill add to that a little. I wonder what timothys about that as a former ausa. You have these odd lacuna in the report where even to explain it takes about a fiveminute windup because you have mueller tiptoeing around conclusions that leave Congress Without<\/a> any ability to make a clean sentence, of course he found obstruction for example. So he was genteel in a lot of spots that besides staying his hand just left it very difficult even to try to explain. Tim, what do you think about the report itself, even though thats a kind of departure from well, its not. It actually will be the number one exhibit come wednesday. Do i think they need to swing for the fences . No. When i used to try cases, if you try to swing for the fence, oftentimes it falls flat. They need to use this opportunity as a reset button. You know, barr was successful in his Misinformation Campaign<\/a> around the report. So this is an opportunity since most americans havent read the report to educate the public about the most serious aspects of the report. For Something Like<\/a> this, a report this complex, theyve got to pick and choose and focus on, you know, for example on house judiciary, focus on the most serious aspects of wrongdoing on obstruction of justice. And youve got to use the report as a guide in your approach with mueller, particularly given that hes already said he wants to try to stay within that. You want to use and highlight the most serious aspects and obstruction, whether its instances that the president tried to fire the special counsel. I think thats going to be key. Theyve got to pick and choose and hone in on that. Youve only got a short amount of time, five minutes. Let me ask matt to react to your premise. I think theres some tension, maybe even a flatout difference of opinion with ron. Thats right, you swing for the fences, you often flail. But not down three runs and were 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. Is there so much that has to be accomplished wednesday to change the dynamic that a mere reset cant do the job . I think the question is if youre 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 this investigation might be an existential threat to his presidency. I think those days are over. I think thats done. When he first heard about it, he said, im done. Weve talked on this podcast before about what i see as some of the Inflection Point<\/a>s in the past and how all the Inflection Point<\/a>s have gone the president s way, mueller not making a call on obstruction, barr whitewashing things and giving trump a fourweek head start. This is another Inflection Point<\/a>. I think its too much to think that 16 weeks after the report was turned into doj, 12 weeks after it was released to the public that youre going to see an Inflection Point<\/a> so dramatic that its going to completely reverse things and lead to another existential threat that removes the president from office. What i think the democrats ought to do is just try to draw out for the American Public<\/a> what some of the reports findings are and try to show that the report does show he committed a crime. Youve got a tough witness. Hes been before Congress Many<\/a> times. Hes been prepped by people like me and ron many times. Dont go beyond the four corners of the report, dont take hypotheticals, dont speculate. Theyre going to have to be creative and ask general questions that then get to specifics. You start by saying, is it a crime 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 hypothetical. Has the department prosecuted that in the past . The answer is yes. Nice pivot. Did the president create someone to create a false document . The answer to that is yes. So you draw him in without hoping hell come out and say the magic words. Having seen him testify and having been on the hot seat probably more times than you can count. When i said hes a tough witness, its not just that hell be well prepared. Its a real dilemma whether you have to wear kidd gloves or not given who he is. I agree with matt. I think that the committee should roll into this hearing with a purpose of communicating the substance of the report in the broadest and most accessible way to the American Public<\/a> as they can. Forget about articles of impeachment, forget about the vote count in the senate. The idea here is to get the information in that report which was presented in a legalistic and dense 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 in a leading fashion that the way prosecutors prove cases, every crime has specific elements. The way prosecutors prove cases is they present evidence that supports each one of those elements. Mueller left you the road map. There are ten 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 that crime of obstruction. That id say is an understatement. You actually read into those paragraphs. He concludes theres obstructive conduct. Absolutely. Thats where i would walk mueller. He is going to be a reluctant witness. On his best and most cooperative days hes not a strong witness because hes dramatic or verbose. Hes a strong witness because he knows his facts. Hes been impeccably prepared. Knowing that, i would go in as matt gave us an example with 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. I probably have a different strategy, which is i think where the democrats are is they need to think about not what happens on july 17th but what happens on july 18th, so what happens next. Even if they have a good day with mueller and they coax him to say some things, their biggest vulnerability is its just over at sunset. I think their objective in the hearing has to be to say, hey, theres more things to investigate. They need to leave that with more doors open than closed. Thats testing mueller on whats not in the report. Not that hes going to comment on it, but what are the areas of investigation mueller didnt complete, what are the things he looked at but didnt run to ground. One of my biggest critiques of report is he set the Legal Standard<\/a>, its just the wrong Legal Standard<\/a> under federal election law. He could not establish there was coordination. Thats not the standard under federal election law. I think there are a lot of areas where mueller didnt run the thing to ground. On the work with wikileaks and what did donald trump jr. Do with wikileaks and roger stone. I think this discussion of whats in the report is important, but whats more important is opening the doors to whats not in the report that congress on july 18th can say hey this is why we need to do more hearings, this is why we need to look into more things. Just this eight minutes we have established a very big fault line on this panel. Are we going to go for the four corners or are we going to go broader . That is one fundamental question and leaving aside whos making it, the fiveminute structure, whats going to be happening with the republicans. Let me try to turn it around. Okay. Everybody seems to be thinking nothings going to clear the fences tomorrow and theres some discussion about what will be good enough to go on. What would be like a clear loss, like game over, see you next season, really theres just no more air in the tires to keep mixing metaphors and, you know, trump can say were done . Honestly a clear loss would be a hearing that looks like a lot of these hearings before this committee hearing. You have a twohour cap on this hearing. The republicans are successful in interrupting and dragging things out so in the two hours you dont get that many questions asked. I have a lot of friends on that committee. A lot of poor questioning from the members. So you leave with the takeaway from the American People<\/a> being this is a partisan food fight that didnt establish anything because theres a lot of poor questioning. Andy muellers composure is legendary. Hows it going to be for him to be sitting in the chair and there are going to be people on the committee who will as much as call him a criminal, a cheat, et cetera. Do you see him being completely unflappable . Do you see him even trying to respond and polite or tuning him out . I see director mueller handling that sort of stuff particularly well. Those are not balls that hes going to swing at. Hes so straight ahead in his responses. Hell call a spade a spade, but hes not going to get into an argument with the questioner. 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 tradie ining barbs. Given this limitation, what about if you could give advise, and maybe you are, in terms of crafting actual questions . I think it was andy talked about leading questions. Is that the way to go . How would you actually brainstorm like pen to paper what question one looks like, two, three and four . So you really have to particularly for the members who are questioning mueller, you really which is everyone. So theres going to be some closed door session after. Okay. You really need to have the members use the report as a foundation and you really have to focus them on the key parts, you know, whether its obstruction. For example, mr. Mueller, you found and i quote substantial that he was the president tried to fire you on this day. Thats perfect. Let me stop you right now. Are you then just going to do a leading question . Are you going to try to pin him to say exactly what hes talking about at the risk of his responding, well, its in the report. So your followup is tell us in your own words what was the substantial evidence you found on that . Will he tell in his own words . Absolutely. Thats the thing. Hes not squirrely. Ive seen him testify and it hasnt been the same kind of drama but hes unfailingly polite or responsive. Hell try maybe to put it in his own words. Thats already a big thing, dont you think . Absolutely. 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 havent really read the report, if you get mule toeller to talk about s own words some of the most serious parts, it gives him that breathing room. Youre focusing this is your report, now i want you to tell me in your own words. You have a trial, you have juries that have limited attention span. If you can get them to focus on the snapshot of the key part and have the witness tell in his own words, thats going to bring some color to life to this. Thats true. Ron, youve been up there. What do you think the rs are going to do . Will they scream and harangue and distract . Will they have no concern about how it looks to the American People<\/a> that this be a moment of kind of dignity and drama . Yikes. That wasnt a rhetorical question. No, but it was. Matt pointed this out. The republicans have two ways to win, right . One is that mueller gives answers that are helpful to them. I think he will give more answers that are helpful than people believe. And two, they run out the clock. So what theyre going to do is talk and harangue and strum and drang and bring up the dossier and the conspiracy, the whole thing. Theyre going to try 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 so at the end what people say is a bunch of people yelling, talking about a bunch of stuff, i dont know. You know, click, two hours. So they have both their elaborately spun crazy conspiracy theories and a ticking clock as their allies in this process. I think they will use both to try to minimize whatever clarity the democrats could come out of this. The poor democrats only have the truth, which doesnt seem to be that strong an ally. Youre up there, matt, it sounds like. Whats the prep process like . Are the dems being disciplined . Are the actual members doing their homework . Whats your best guess . Thats, again, not a rhetorical question. How is it working over the next few days . Its difficult. The Judiciary Committee<\/a> in particular, probably only about half the members on that committee are going to get to ask questions. Judiciary in the morning, oversight in the afternoon . Judicial at 9, intel at noon. Because its two hours, there are 45 members of that committee, theres not enough time. I assume theyll let the most senior members ask first. Its actually the more junior members who have been better questioners. For example, when theyve had m Matt Whitaker<\/a> up, it was the junior members who actually drew some blood. I hope theyll be smart and discipline. Number one, ask questions, dont give speeches. When you give a speech, youre wasting your five minutes. Number two, do some coordination among members so you dont all ask about the same area, which happens all the time. Surely theyre trying to do that much, no . The staff tries very hard. But some of these members who have been there a long time have their own opinions about the wisdom of their strategies. I would say number three, when you start a line of questioning, know where youre trying to go before you get there. You see all the time these members go barging down a line of questioning, get to the end, find out theyve been down a blind alley and times up. Tim made the other point of tell us in your own words. Its got to be leading to a point, but you want him to give life to the most serious parts that he found. 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. How much that much coordination . Do you think theres an agreement about what are the four or five most important things . I would hope so because youve got limited time. You have to make a decision. When i was on the hill and we were doing hearings on oversight, wed have to make a decision in terms of youve got five minutes, x amount of time. Weve got to focus on in this case the four most serious aspects of the obstruction of justice charge. Weve only got two hours. We dont have all day. Youve 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 a report thats hundreds of pages. If youre focusing on obstruction of justice, what are the most serious . The four ones that he found probable cause and substantial evidence of obstruction. I guess id be a little more towards yes no questions. Mueller, while hes quite articulate and unfailingly polite. Ive also watched him testify. He can be not verbose but a little bureaucratic. If youre going to spend the five minutes asking questions that means hes going to talk for three minutes. If you let him explain i was appointed under this regulation, blah blah blah, youre not going to get a lot out of it. Having these things come through his voice would be ideal. Theyre looking for the tv moment. In some ways its a lot of yes no and just trying to get some things out. Id also just say in a weird way, particularly in the house, questioning goes awry through overly ambitious efforts to question about too much stuff and too much. So id say pick one thing, just one thing and spend your five minutes nailing that one thing down. Can the chairs in a position to enforce that much . No. Nothing. I think youll see in some ways better results in the Intelligence Committee<\/a> probably than in the Judiciary Committee<\/a>. The members there are maybe a little better questioners and maybe a little more focused on the russia side of this in a way thats going to be a little more engaging to the public. Let me move exactly to that and ask you, andy, thats become sort of the forgotten huge half of the report that, again, if you read it carefully, describes some eyebrow raising, worrisome, misbehavior. I think that the short answer that people have given, theres nothing there. Thats obviously not true. Do you spend some of your precious time trying to establish that at the cost of not fulling plumbing the depths of the second half of the Mueller Report<\/a> . Well see how much of this coordination actually takes place. But i think rons right that the natural split there is to have the Intel Committee<\/a> focus on that. Its also the part of the report that i think mueller feels most strongly about. Its what he led his own Public Statement<\/a> with. He wanted to remind everybody about that. He clearly feels like thats been pushed aside and the focus on the obstruction issues. Its a way to kind of provoke him, get him engaged. It is an area that hell probably be more likely to wax poetic on. Certainly on the intel side, you have to start with that. That is their mission. Thats what theyre there to find out about. I think its Fertile Ground<\/a> to bring mueller to. Any chance that he permits us and expresses any daylight between him and barr . I think its possible. I think hell try not to, but if you ask him questions, if you ask him yes no questions about some of the things that barr said and say, is that an accurate description of your work, you might find a little daylight. Hell do Everything Possible<\/a> to avoid the personal confrontation. You think that, but on the most important work of his career, barr really did him a disservice. But muellers way too unflappable unfailingly polite. Or soldier like or whatever. He had the opportunity to do that from behind the podium at justice. He didnt. So it would be a surprise to me. By the way, i assume nobody is working i want to focus a little bit more on barr. Youve had efforts now, overtures to try to keep the deputies from testifying after. All indications before were thats bobs decision, its hands off. Is he 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 know if hes going to come before this committee. He was subpoenaed to come before this committee and defied the subpoena because he didnt want to take questions from staff. Hes the best witness the president has because hes the attorney general is at the Justice Department<\/a>, was muellers supervisor. And really has amazing ability to make extreme statements eye to eye and sound reasonable. Hes got to go before the committee sometime this year as a regular oversight hearing that every attorney general has to do. So he will, i assume, in the fall. I meant more by the way in any way to try to manipulate, limit, curb the testimony thats coming. Hes trying to block two of muellers deputies from coming in. He cant really do that if they dont want to listen to him. They can intimidate there might be bar referrals. They tried to intimidate sally yates from coming in to testify when she came early in the administration and she blew them off. She wasnt willing to do it. Why is it those two, by the way . How have we chosen who the deputies are . I dont know why the house chose that. I suspect because they were the two most senior people or the two people who had visibility into everything by virtue of being chief of staff and the most senior person. Lets focus on them. They will presumably be much more candid. It might even be, in fact, that theyre willing to express daylight. On the other hand, theyre behind the scenes. Your overall play book for wednesday and both matt and ron have suggested that the play book has a lot of blank pages in it. But in your overall play book, what are you doing with and what are you reserving for the deputies . I think youre for the deputies reserving what key additional information. 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. I think theyve got to use the deputies as an opportunity to build next steps in a way thats going to be much more difficult with mueller and the cameras rolling. I think thats where the deputies are going to be key. I also think the interesting question that youre not going to get out of 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. Maybe the deputies cough that up. Of all my criticisms of mueller, my biggest one is he never questioned trump. I think its an inexcusable legal failure and historical failure. His story in the report is, hey, i first asked him on december 8th to question and they said no and it was going to take a lot of time to litigate this out so i gave up and i had a lot of information elsewhere. For a prosecutor, by the way, stunning. One more thing, we thought we already had enough evidence, which is evidence of intent, right . What else could he mean . Go ahead. Why did you wait all the way to december 8th . Did you just get snookered by Rudy Giuliani<\/a> constantly promising you always going to happen. Why did they decide they couldnt win this litigation or they didnt have time to bring this litigation. We wouldnt have u. S. V nixon if the watergate prosecutor said fighting over these tapes, who knows, maybe we win, why bother. That was not the decision made 30 years ago. I think the mueller team needs to be pressed hard on this. This sense of a ticking clock, time was running out, we needed to have this answer, where did that come from . Was that externally applied. In the Matt Whitaker<\/a> doj era there was a lot of talk about this and barr shows up and all of a sudden its done and of. I want to know how all that went down. I think the deputies are going to be the place where you might well get some traction. Fantastic point. Compare, say, whitewater, which was nine years and much less complicated. This is actually the genesis of the talking feds podcast. People would make these blithe explanations and the thing that seems to clear to me is this must have been hotly debated. Its that hot debate, where was weissman on this. It does seem such an obvious move and i do think it will be sort of the first count of criticism against him in history. It really gives the possibility that we may never know some very important things. On the logistics, by the way, so the deputies are going to be at the end of the day in theory, no ones supposed to know but in practice we just expect that their content will leak. No party has a premium on leaking. Hows that going to work . I dont know. One, they can have a nontranscribed interview. The other is how theyve done interviewed behind closed doors, they transcribe it and make that transcript public the day after. Im not sure i see the point of that. The purpose of congressional investigations, i think typically they have two purposes. One is fact finding and two is public illumination. The deputies arent there for public illumination because theyre behind closed doors. Theyre there for fact finding and hopefully to give the committee some new avenues to look at. Im not sure how much difference it really makes. Andy, im looking at people i know who have testified before, but youve probably been on the hot seat the most. Whats it going to feel like for him . Will it be sweating intense . Will it feel like the six hours passes in ten minutes . Do you constantly rethink i should have said that last answer, a little bit this way . Hes a human being after all. Might even have to go to the bathroom during the day, who knows . Its going to be terrible in every way you can think of. Its a miserable root canal of a day. Its absolutely awful. You spend an enormous amount of time preparing and mueller certainly does. They used to line the hallway leading up to his office with briefing teams. Hed have these thousand page binders all over the place. Its really true. People would go in and hed already have it down to detail. His command of the facts when i worked with him was unparalleled. Hed come after you in a very kind of cross examination style. Its 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 did it less and less frequently when he was director. He began to rely more heavily on his deputies to go in and take these swings for him. He cant get out of this one, obviously. Its physically draining. By the way, hes a little bit older, right . Yeah. I probably shouldnt have said that. Hell be coming after me now. You know, you immediately start calculating your question and the answer like as theyre speaking. Youre constantly trying to figure out where you are in the facts that you know, what you can reveal, what you should reveal. Youre trying to be as accurate and truthful as you possibly can but youre trying not to step on things like classification and sensitive information, talk about ongoing cases, things like that. Hes got a 400 page report to memorize and be able to instantly index and provide facts from. Its a tall order. You basically want to get out alive. You know that youre not going to answer every question as well as youd like to. The period after the testimony is almost as excruciating because you spend a lot of time thinking, i shouldnt have said that or i should have said that differently. Will they give mueller followup written questions . Its hard to say. I could see on the one hand the value, but i think the main goal of getting him up before the cameras. You think this is the last word from mueller . Probably. I think its possible the deputies will get those sort of followup questions. Thats your chance here to go beyond the report. As a former deputy, i can tell you always call the deputies up because they know a lot, theyve been around forever and theyre more likely to say more than what they should. Im a perfect example of that. Who will be there from, says the department . From bars staff, from rosens staff . Thats a really good question. Who as protocol would have it . That will affect the atmosphere a little, no . I think theyll push hard to have someone from legislative affairs in the room at least. But i also think what we know about this committee is the republican members of this committee are members of the trump administration. They will make snake eyes at these people when they testify and make it clear that anything they say is going to get reported back. This game is not on the level in any way, shape or form. This is one side holding a hearing, the other side engaged in a Defense Campaign<\/a> for the president. So doesnt really matter who donald trump has in the room. And without rules. Without rules. Yeah. Okay. Who in both committees are the democrats best questioners, cleanest, most able to pose followup questions . Who do you want in sort of staying with baseball in the third and fourth positions as it were . Matt, do you have a sense of that . Adam schiff is i think heads above any of the questioners. On the Judiciary Committee<\/a>, David Sisilini<\/a> is good. Hakeem jeffreys is pretty strong. Jim himes. Hipsy. Intelligence committee. And i think Eric Swalwell<\/a> was a former prosecutor. If you get him to focus, he can be pretty effective. I think folks who have both a Law Enforcement<\/a> or prosecutorial background. Val. Is there anyone on the republican side who will even try to ask him questions, you know, however theyll do it . Or will it simply be fiveminute harangues, thank you, mr. Chairman, i yield my time . As low as my expectations are for the democrats, i think its the most likely dramatic moment in this hearing comes from some republican overreaching. Mueller wont lose his cool but i do think he is a loyal leader of his team. I think if someone sits there and starts with the 12 angry testimo democrats and your political hacks and so on, i think its his obligation to defend his team and call out what the republicans are doing to discourage people from doing the kind of principled Public Service<\/a> that muellers team did. I hugely respect their service and their willingness to do it. 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, just enough of this. Weve been so thirsty about this for three years. Every chance for people to stand up, it hasnt happened. There are two kind of duties here. Theres the duty and 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 two or three years. They gave up their lives. They did a great product with the flaws that rons identified. What about it . Theres no doubt in my mind hed defend those folks. I think he tried to do that at the end of his Public Statement<\/a> a few weeks ago. I just think what hell do is hell dismiss those first two, three waves of criticism. He wont get into like a heated, angry exchange. Hell just absolutely deny that his folks were selected because of their political background or deny that he stacked his team with a bunch of angry democrats. He will stand up and defend that team. I think hell just do it in that straight ahead dispassionate kind of the facts only delivery that hes got. If its actually in response to a screed, that could be a dramatic kind of 15 seconds. He could sort of vaporize somebo somebody. I do think its important how he stands up. Particularly if you start getting the 12 angry democrats. What was very powerful when you testified before the committee when the republicans tried to paint this misinformation that james comey was unpopular in the fbi and everyone wanted to get rid of him. You stood up and it was very clear that was bogus, that was a lie. I think thats important for mueller at this point in time. How about for the country . Say no, these are focuslks w were doing their job and following the facts. The first thing he said to me when i saw him in the days following that testimony which was the first meeting between the special counsel team. They came over to start to get briefed on all the work we had done to kind of lead up to that point. 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 theres a kind of ant antidrama drama i think too. Hes very dramatic because the people around him when theyre histrionic his cool ways im going to go clint eastwood. Also some henry fonda. This guy is the whole deal. Normally lets say that tim is right, normally one of the things youd be trying to do is at least set the table for the week, month, two months that comes after. If they were thinking in terms of reset and having more time to go at this in an investigative way, does it behoove them to try to identify specific areas that give them a concrete agenda for a week from now, be it hope hicks. Theyll be still be left with the problem of not having a live witness in front of the cameras. I think this is their most important objective at the hearing, which is to explain what mueller didnt finish, to explain what questions are still unanswered, to explain what corners he didnt touch. I think particularly around wikileaks and stone and trump junior and what kind of coordination went on there. I think they have to explain to people why this continues after muellers testimony. I think thats about, you know, one of the still unanswered questions. I think thats the most important table setting they need to do. If this is a baseball game the designated hitter here is bill barr. What i can promise you will happen is at the end of the day he will do a press conference and he will stand there in the department of justice and announce that basically the hearing proved that there are no crimes committed, that this is all over, that the committees gotten what they want, now its time to move on. He will be the final and hell do it before the 6 00 news. Hell do it before the 6 00 news. He will try to wrap this up and put a bow on it and say over, finished, done, 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. Let me add do you think they have in mind what happens a week hence, two weeks hence if everything goes well . Does schiff have a sense of, okay, im going to be going with lewandowski . Is it just like well figure it out then, we just have to have a good day wednesday and well figure it out later . Well, they should have a plan. Its been 12 weeks since the report was released. They have authorized and sent a bunch of subpoenas to a bunch of witnesses. Do you know how many times theyve gone to court to enforce one of the subpoenas in the 12 weeks . Zero. Theyve not gone to court to get don mcgahn or any of the other witnesses they say they want. So i am a little unclear what their longterm strategy is. I think they really wanted to get mueller and theyre going to finally get mueller although under very restricted terms. Doesnt seem like theyre getting mcgahn any time soon. I think theyre floundering a little bit. Part of it is they cant figure out what to do and part of it is a real disagreement inside the House Democratic<\/a> caucus about how hard they ought to push and whether they push themselves into an impeachment battle that they dont want to have for the most part. The 64,000 question of not just 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 in sort of political maneuvering and tactics and whos winning on, in fact, the health, vitality and Public Confidence<\/a> of the Democratic Institutions<\/a> whose basic strength we never took as being up for grabs before. So maybe it depends on the 2020 election, but we have this huge event thats happened and sort of underlined what everybody has said, which is the prospect that the American People<\/a> wont even know what happened and that theyll in a sense get away with crimes and abhorrent behavior. What is your thoughts about how the health of Democratic Institutions<\/a> like the fbi appear in a post trump world, assuming he leaves in an orderly transition sometime . 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<\/a> and his effect on how the public perceives the Justice Department<\/a> as an independent investigator and arbiter of facts. The thing im worried about today is not so much whether people perceive the Justice Department<\/a> as being independent or whether it actually is independent anymore. Having watched how barr has behaved as attorney general, i have real concerns. And i have concerns about what next year looks like and whether the president is able to have another lock her up campaign and is able to push the attorney general into investigating the democratic nominee. Youve already seen them about biden. 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 with an attorney general that at times even will because of the way hes able to put things publicly. If im right and he has accomplished that, who knows if the Justice Department<\/a> will ever go back. It may go back between democratic president s but not republican ones. Tim . I think that is under our institutions. You just saw recently where barr tried to remove the whole team for the Citizenship Question<\/a> and the judge fought back that you have to come back with something better. This doesnt make any sense whatsoever. I think that it is going to be real key in terms of if trump is reelected, a continued erosion. Youre seeing it right now, can we put a stop on that . Can democrats in the interim, make sure theyre being more aggressive protecting these institutions and shining a light on the damage thats being done because thats the real challenge here. Part of what democrats of struggled with, theyre in a different world. Everyone expected trump to play by certain rules. Thats the way most president s have. You send people up to testify and in the end, produce documents. In the minority, with the Obama Administration<\/a> it was as much frustration the Obama Administration<\/a> got and fought on some points, they in the end turn over some materials. The democrats in congress now havent adjusted to a president who functions more like a mob boss and has every flunky around him willing to do whatever it takes to shut things down and to say no. The struggle for democrats, what do we do . Its adjusting to a new world. Thats the challenge we see now. I do think a lot of our democratic norms are on the ballot in 2020 and we will make a fundamental decision as a country. If trump gets four more years and goes down the path he is, ideas like an independent Justice Department<\/a> or federal Law Enforcement<\/a> agency insulated from politics will be eroded beyond measure. Its not comforting attorney general session is the good old days. Really crazy. Four more years of this or five more years of this, hard to imagine. But the second way, even if the democrats win, the question will be what will the democrats do in return . Will they restore these norms or practice trumpism from the left . Those are hard and difficult questions, a lot of what we believe has been fixed. In the course of my 25 years in policy, i believe fixed beacons how the system works and the Justice Department<\/a> works have been torn apart in the past three years and not whether it gets put back together or not. I feel as strongly as the rest of the panelists do of the damage been done to the system and the fbi. Its extraordinary. All indications are worse for the future. One pay, somebody has to stand up and defend these organizations and institutions. One way that can be done is by communicating whats in that report, more than mueller did. Were in a country right now where informed, plugged in engaged political people are going to town halls of their representatives and walking out, saying, i didnt know the report said anything bad about the president. Somehow we have to rectify the fact were sitting on this mass of evidence. Its not the greatest report in the world. There are all kinds of ways it could have been better as well and lets use what we have. Thats what theyre trying to accomplish next week. You have vote and believe the American People<\/a> really understand the kind of stakes these last four answers present, the solid majority of them would see this as important and push back, among the more vexing aspects of these last few years, not simply hes gotten away with it or apparent indifference or ignorance of all thats happening. On that cheery note, a great discussion. Matt, tim, ron, andy, thank you so much. So, as i said, look, if you like what youve heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to talking feds podcast on Apple Podcast<\/a> or wherever they get their podcast and please take a moment to rate and review this podcast. You can talk us to on twitter and other fed related content and check us out on the web at talking feds. Com where we have full episode transcripts. Thank you for tuning in. Maybe worry but as long as you need answers, the feds at least will keep talking. You have a hard out but can we take a moment or two . Does anybody have any questions . I think we have time for a couple. Line them up. A simple question, playbook. Will we ever find out what happened to the Counter Intelligence<\/a> investigation . You might not. You might not. Most Counter Intelligence<\/a> investigations dont get aired out in the light of day. I dont know whats happening with that right now. I would expect lingering counterintelligence concerns are still being followed up by the fbi, the case when i was there during the pendency of the special toinl team. By definition, theyre conducted in a classified context designed to protect sources and methods and things like that. One more . Thanks, everyone. It was a fascinating talk. Does anyone think is there value in the line of question related to the ooc memo, up to and including but for it and your fundamental fairness concerns, would you have charged the president . That seems to continue the analogy, casey at the bat or a natural moment, is that too big a risk to take . I dont think its a huge risk. Maybe the single best answer that could happen. I dont see it happening. Its not going to answer it, i dont think. Its a 30 second time. Say we didnt get to that question and didnt consider that question because of the memo it wouldnt be appropriate for me to speculate about it here. One of the reasons, when you read carefully i think he did conclude, doesnt seem like prosecutors do, were about to cross the finish line but lets not think about it anymore because we have this memo. Its quite likely they went through the whole analysis, thats what they do and then the memo was overlain. That would be great to know if it were the facts but i dont think well know. Anyone else . Thanks, everyone thank you. Tonight, on cspan, the House Oversight<\/a> committee with acting homeland secretary, Kevin Mcaleenan<\/a> talking about the family separation policy at the mexico border on cspan at 8 00 p. M. On cspan. Org and the cspan radio app. This weekend washington journal is live on the National Space<\/a> museum on the national mall, to mark the 50th anniversary of the appall low moon landing. Join us at 7 00 a. M. Eastern, apollo snaunt, and author of John F Kennedy<\/a> and race for the moon, john logsdon. And air and space museum, curator and author of a jog to the moon. Join us with your calls, facebook questions and tweets. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal marking the 50th anniversary of the apollo moon landing Live Saturday<\/a> morning. Up next on cspan3, a combination of the Woodrow Wilson<\/a> center on the anniversary of a counterterrorism attack","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia903008.us.archive.org\/24\/items\/CSPAN3_20190718_185600_Former_FBI_Acting_Director__Others_Previews_Bob_Mueller_Testimony\/CSPAN3_20190718_185600_Former_FBI_Acting_Director__Others_Previews_Bob_Mueller_Testimony.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20190718_185600_Former_FBI_Acting_Director__Others_Previews_Bob_Mueller_Testimony_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}