tf_46.mp3
PRINTABLE VERSION
Adam Schiff [00:00:00] In my view, there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. And I would just say to people watching here at home and around the world, in the words of my great colleague, "We are better than that." Adjourned.
Harry Litman [00:00:27] Welcome to Talking Feds. A prosecutors roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials for a dynamic discussion of the most important legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Litman. I'm a former United States Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General and a current Washington Post columnist. We come to the close of the most dramatic and consequential week in the Trump presidency, with only the possible exception of the delivery of the Mueller report. And to unpack it and look ahead, we have a group of returning Feds who need no introduction for anyone who uses Twitter or watches cable TV, but I will give quick ones anyway. First, Matt Miller, partner at Vianovo and former Director of the Office of Public Affairs for the Department of Justice. Thanks for being here, Matt.
Matt Miller [00:01:18] Thank you.
Harry Litman [00:01:19] Next, Frank Figliuzzi, U.S. Former Assistant Director for Counterintelligence at the FBI. Frank, thank you.
Frank Figliuzzi [00:01:27] My pleasure.
Harry Litman [00:01:28] And finally, returning to Talking Feds Natasha Bertrand, a.k.a. the Scoop Machine National Security Correspondent at Politico. Natasha, thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. Okay. With all that happened this week, I just want to get right to it. A week ago, impeachment was barely more than a concept, and now it seems like an inevitability. It was a week that saw a parade of witnesses establish beyond nearly any doubt, reasonable doubt, all doubt, a course of bribery and breathtakingly corrupt conduct by the president that imperiled U.S. national security interests for the most petty political gain and a week in which House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff executed a fairly flawless marshaling of evidence that left the Republicans flailing for an effective response. But and let me just start with the 64,000 dollar question. Did it matter in the House, in the Senate, in the White House and the country? Was it all sound and fury signifying nothing? Did it move any important needle at all? Serve that up to anyone.
Matt Miller [00:02:43] I'll take a crack at it. Yeah. Look, I think it's probably too early to know for sure. I think all the early signs are that that while Trump will certainly be impeached in the House, that conviction is unlikely in the Senate. I think there was a period about a month ago when this story was still breaking and we were still finding out all the details when his future was a bit uncertain. And you could tell because Republicans, especially Senate Republicans, were very unsteady and were kind of hiding from reporters and didn't know what to say. And since then, they've all kind of rallied around these -- I hesitate even to call defenses that the president has served up -- but they've rallied around the talking points anyway. And I think the only way that at this point that they move, they're not going to move because the evidence is clear and convincing, because we've seen all the evidence is clear and convincing and they haven't moved. They're going to move if public opinion moves. And I don't know that it will. People seem pretty polarized and pretty locked in. But I think it's also a little too early to say for certain that it won't move. The question is, does it move enough? I think the president's approval rating has to get down below 40, down probably to around 35. The number of people that, the percentage of people that support removal from office has to get above where it is now in the high 40s, around 50 up to I don't know what the magic number is, 55, 60. And that is a that is a long way to go. And I don't know that we're gonna get quite there.
Harry Litman [00:04:07] All right. So the bellwether is is just politics and not the evidence, although it did seem to me just this morning that there was the slightest bit of skittishness. Say, you know, Lindsey Graham was saying we can't do this quickly. Just a little bit, a sign that maybe they're shaken. But, boy, if they're not taking this as an established fact on the on the evidence, you know what? What else could move them? Natasha, you were starting to talk.
Natasha Bertrand [00:04:35] Yeah, no, I was just going to say that I think something that frankly surprised some of the Democrats on the committee was what Will Hurd said yesterday. And that really seemed like something that they took as a sign that maybe they won't have any Republicans shift over to their side on this. You know, he said that an impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear and unambiguous. And he has not heard it, right? So he personally has not heard evidence proving that the president committed bribery or extortion. So clearly, they're starting there. They're sticking with this and framing it in these terms of bribery and extortion, regardless of the fact that it's been well established by the transcript itself, the call record itself that the president asked a foreign government to investigate his chief political rival. That should frankly be enough without the bribery, extortion aspect of it. But he was really seen as a bellwether of whether any moderate Republicans were going to change sides. As of right now, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Harry Litman [00:05:28] He is a moderate to start with, retiring. He seems to have some modicum of principle. And yeah, if not him, then who? Frank. Yes.
Frank Figliuzzi [00:05:38] Yeah. Harry I'm so I'm with Matt on the notion that it's too early to tell what's where this is going. And I'm with Natasha on the highly unlikely scenario that Republicans are gonna gonna flip over and vote to remove the president. For me, the question is not the issue of removal. Conviction in the Senate. I just don't think that's going to happen for me. The question is, are voters? How have voters been impacted by what they saw these past two weeks? And I I look at the headlines of major newspapers around the country, and there's some signs that the newspapers felt, at least in terms of their headline decisions and how they how they they crafted the language in a headline that they thought something that evidence was clear of presidential misconduct. But on the early factor, we are way too early to figure out whether this is going to impact a vote. And I predict there are many things to come. We're going to see the FBI bashed. We're going to see the origins. Here we go again of the special counsel inquiry and the Russian intelligence investigation continually assaulted. And we're about to experience a barrage of Russian social media propaganda, not to mention White House led strategies and Lindsey Graham led Strategies and A.G. Barr led strategies to make us all scratch our heads and wonder who we can believe.
Harry Litman [00:07:12] Oy vey. All right. Well, let me just get to this, was jumping over where we were gonna be, but let's go right to this. What you mean, Frank, is, you know, December 9th is the IG report. But there's some suggestion that that Attorney General Bar is going to time the release of whatever he has to say from his globe trotting mission just around, you know, in the next couple weeks to at least muddy the waters. Is it? Are you hearing that, Natasha? What is it? What do you think is the sort of, you know, November surprise possibility that may be being hatched out here.
Natasha Bertrand [00:07:51] Yeah. So I definitely think that there's been kind of a race going on here. The impeachment inquiry has obviously been moving very quickly on the House side. And there has been a perception among many people interviewed by the IG's office and doing final comments on the IQ report, et cetera, that that process was rushed as well. But at the same token, you know, what we've been told is that the IG report is not going to be particularly damning for the FBI. That the most damning thing to come out will be this this finding about the FBI lawyer who allegedly altered a document that was then used in some way for the Carter page FISA application. So if Republicans are wresting everything on this IG report, they might be disappointed. So then what happens is they're going to start resting more of their hopes on the Durham investigation and that we don't know when that is going to wrap up. We've got no indication about that. But there does seem to be a race to the finish line here. And some people who have been interviewed by the IG's office, you know, find that to be very clear with the last kind of couple of weeks and months of this process have played out.
Harry Litman [00:09:04] Are you hearing anything that because we know on the one hand, Durham is Mr. Methodical, i.e. Mr. Slow, but we also know that if the Attorney General might or might not be too dismayed if it happens that this drops right in the middle of impeachment and he may have some control over it. How do you think that's going to play out? And let me actually add one question to the mix. It seemed to me that a success of the last day or two, especially with Fiona Hill, who I thought was an unbelievably effective witness, was to augment the stakes here and make the Republicans, in defending Trump, not not just have to pay the cost of lying, but but also of being kind of betrayers of the national security. That is, the Dems through the witnesses, made a pretty good presentation of the national security stakes that that Trump's conduct imperiled. So do you think that that factors into this sort of political dynamic? And then just, you know, on this factual point, what what's your what's your sense? Are you hearing anything about when we get the results of what Barr has been doing?
Matt Miller [00:10:25] Yeah. So. They've said now that the IG report will be released on December 9th. What I've been told is that while, of course, while the findings of the report are the Inspector General's, that Barr has taken direct control of the timing of the release, and he is the one who is deciding when it will be released. And is pretty much directing. And you can see that in the way he's been coordinating with Lindsey Graham and making sure that Lindsey Graham knew something, that some of the information that was in it and was able to do a hearing two days after its release. I would say in terms of the content, I think Natasha is right. What we know so far is that it's not that damning for the FBI. But I would just caution, it's a 400 page report. I know for a fact they've looked at things beyond just what the FBI has done. But people at DOJ and given the way Horowitz kind of came down on in his last report into Jim Comey, he doesn't always take the biggest picture view and he can be very narrow minded I think at the way he looks at things. So I think there could be any number of findings in that report that help both sides of the political divide. On the bigger question about the outcome of these hearings. Yeah, I think Fiona Hill will have an impact, but I honestly think the bigger impact is that Trump getting away with this with no sanction. I mean, he'll be impeached by the House, but he won't care too much about those that. He's not gonna be removed from office. He's going to be emboldened. And with that, say, this wraps up in January with with 10 months to go until his election, he's going to feel like he can use the power of his office and the power of the federal government any way he wants to to try to win reelection. And I think that means pressuring foreign governments to open investigations. I think it means pressuring Bill Barr to open an investigation, some cockamamie investigation into whoever the Democratic nominee is. I think it means things like, you know, like we've already seen with the wall where he tells people that if they break the law, building the wall, he'll help pardon them. I think all bets are off the table. And it is an extraordinary advantage for him as an incumbent. If you are if you are completely unwilling to be checked by the laws and the rules and the norms that have governed every other previous holder of that office. I think it is a very scary fact.
Harry Litman [00:12:42] What I thought. I mean, remember, this whole Ukraine adventure began the day after the Mueller report comes out. The part of the call that we've all left behind is where he's trying to trash -- he trashes Muller and calls him incompetent that you know so he's both trying to redo 2016 and looking ahead. So it does seem like any non-sociopath would breathe a sigh of relief and try to be. Be good. You know, like when a cop pulls you over and doesn't give you a ticket, you're normally pretty good for the next few blocks. But he just he just takes it as a sign to run all the red lights.
Matt Miller [00:13:21] He's not a non-sociopath Harry [LAUGHTER].
Harry Litman [00:13:25] This kind of gets into the IG report and where they'll be going. I thought one of the salutary effects of the hearing might have been the partial or near full rehabilitation of the kind of career public servant. You had this parade of really clearly admirable, honest, patriotic people and they're really of the same stripe that Trump has been lambasting any time he gets any any criticism from them. Do you think it makes it harder for the Republicans at least to be trying to sell a deep state conspiracy involving the likes of Holmes, Hill and and Yovanovich? Or not really? Do you think it's still open season on them? Frank, you probably know.
Frank Figliuzzi [00:14:21] So if you'd asked me that question about 24 hours ago, where we finished with the really powerful, impactful testimony of Dr Fiona Hill, I would have said Republicans are going to be hard pressed to claim deep state. But I've got to tell you, I think they're going to be doing it. They've started doing it already. I think we're going to see Lindsey Graham, the Attorney General, the Whitehouse, all start again anew, a bashing the origins of the Russian counterintelligence investigation. I think we're going to see the Attorney General shape his his summary, his messaging publicly about the IG report that's coming out December 9 and then ultimately the John Durham investigation. So we're gonna go right back to the deep state theory and all the conspiracy theories surfacing once again.
Harry Litman [00:15:14] What a thought. All right. Before we, you know it's been such a big week, I don't want to leave it behind too quickly, I wondered if anyone had any sort of vivid impressions that they were left with. What will be the kind of John Dean moments or moments that sizzled? You know what what seemed really memorable about the last several witnesses? Anybody?
Natasha Bertrand [00:15:42] Yeah. I mean, I think that Gordon Sondland's testimony was particularly striking because he said that this was not an irregular backchannel that he was pursuing, that everyone was in the loop on this, that they were acting at the direction of the president. And he implicated pretty much everybody in the White House at the senior level. Mick Mulvaney, the president himself, you know, Rudy Giuliani, who, of course not in the White House, but might as well be. He basically said that the idea that he was going rogue with Kurt Volker and with Rick Perry, the three amigos pursuing this backchannel, was just not accurate. And that was the first time I think we heard someone who has directly spoken with the president about Ukraine policy, about the pressure campaign over the last several months, who spoke to him directly about his desire for the political investigations to be launched. Testifying under oath that this was indeed what the president wanted. And you know, Sondland, the problem is that he has his own credibility issues because he has had to update his testimony due to, you know, other witnesses testifying and directly contradicting him. But I think it was harder for the Republicans to attack him because he cannot be characterized as a never Trumper. I mean, he donated a million dollars to Trump's campaign. He has been extremely loyal to the president. He, you know, was on the phone with him constantly over the last couple months dealing with this. Another really striking moment, I think, came in Pentagon official Laura Cooper's testimony when she testified that on July 25th, her staff started receiving inquiries from Ukrainian officials and also from the Hill about the hold on Ukraine on military aid to Ukraine. That's about a month earlier than we thought the Ukrainians had found out about this hold on military aid. So that is a big revelation because we had been led to believe, especially by the Republicans, that the Ukrainians really had no idea that this hold on aid had occurred and therefore Trump couldn't have been committing extortion or bribery or any kind of quid pro quo because the Ukrainians didn't know that they weren't receiving this military aid. So by testifying that this hold actually was known to them as early as July 25th. That kind of blows a hole in Trump's defense and then his allies defense. That was a really big moment.
Harry Litman [00:18:07] Who do you think, if any, who do you think was lying. Matt, who didn't pass your your spider sense on that?
Matt Miller [00:18:18] I mean, Sondland and Volker, obviously, look, it is--
Harry Litman [00:18:20] Volker obviously. I mean. Sondland for sure, right?
Matt Miller [00:18:23] Well, well, yeah. Volker a little bit less mean. Sondland said flat out he had no--.
Harry Litman [00:18:30] Burisma? Biden?
Matt Miller [00:18:30] Yeah. I mean it's just it's just frankly ridiculous. As Fiona Hill pointed out yesterday, it's ridiculous and in a sense but it's also ridiculous because we had David Holmes come in and say he heard Sondland talking to the president about an investigation into Biden. So his testimony is contradicted by another witness. You know, Volker tried to draw a little bit finer distinction, but even then, I think he was at the best misleading the committee about what he thought an investigation into Burisma to actually mean. I will say about Sondland, I think the most interesting thing about his testimony is it is the one place so far where we've seen really I think the criminal justice system enter into this proceeding in a way. And that's because he went up and didn't tell the truth the first time and exposed himself to potential criminal charges. And that gave the committee a lever they haven't had. You know, they can't get Mike Pompeo to come up and tell the truth, obviously. But Sondland, because he came in and made a massive mistake the first time, they had a lever to get him to come up and tell what actually happened, which I think for the most part he did this week while still leaving some things out.
Harry Litman [00:19:42] Well, he he provided another lever, didn't he, Frank? If his testimony is to be believed and obviously he's a very flawed witness, you have Pompeo and Mulvaney and Perry possible coconspirators to commit bribery, don't you?
Frank Figliuzzi [00:19:59] Yeah, for that reason, Sondland was was kind of a blockbuster witness, and I think people need to start lawyering up. I actually I think I twittered this, that these people need lawyers. I mean, it's gotten to the point now where I don't think their public statements have been have been truthful. I think that someone's statement was that we were all in the loop, something like that. And yes, indeed, it appears they were. I also think your question was what what jumped out of you at you in terms of key testimony? I want to talk about somebody who wasn't in the room, but kind of was by proxy. And that's John Bolton.
Harry Litman [00:20:37] Right.
Frank Figliuzzi [00:20:39] You know, Dr. Hill was the voice of Bolton. And to hear his words through her, that he didn't want any part of his drug deal. That this whole notion had to be reported immediately to the lawyers was powerful stuff. And so powerful that it appears that that the House Intel committee decided they weren't even going to continue attempts to get him to testify. They didn't need him.
Harry Litman [00:21:04] Yeah, I want to pick up with him, in fact, in a moment. Well, right now, it's it's time for our sidebar segment, which our listeners know is when we take a minute to explain some of the terms and relationships that you hear about in this podcast and really everywhere. In the last few years. But people don't necessarily take a deep breath and explain. Today, we are thrilled to be joined by writer, producer, director, actor and novelist Matthew Weiner, the creator of the television series Mad Men and The Romanoff, as well as the executive producer on The Sopranos. Weiner has won nine primetime Emmys, two for The Sopranos and seven for Mad Man, three Golden Globe Awards. Primetime outstanding drama series for four consecutive years. And among other things, he's been included in Time's annual Time 100 as one of the most influential people in the world. Matthew will give a basic overview of the extremely timely topic of executive privilege and its limits. Of course, executive privilege is the chief asserted basis for the refusal of members of the Trump administration to comply with congressional subpoenas. So I give you Matthew Weiner.
Matthew Weiner [00:22:28] What is executive privilege and what are its limits? Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other high ranking executive branch officials to avoid producing certain documents and information to Congress or the courts. The purpose of the privilege is to allow the President to receive candid advice from close advisers without the threat that the information will become public. The Supreme Court has made clear that at least some of the communications are protected under executive privilege. But the scope of the rule is hotly debated. And executive privilege disputes rarely result in judicial decisions. However, some parts of the doctrine are relatively clear. First, executive privilege is limited to communications made in the process of shaping policies and making decisions. Not all communications in which members of the executive participate. Where the communications directly involve the president or White House staff members with broad and significant responsibility for providing the president with advice, the claim of privilege is at its strongest. The stronger version of privilege is sometimes called the presidential communications privilege. And is distinguished from the weaker deliberative process privilege. Second, regardless of form, executive privilege does not provide absolute immunity against producing requested information. Instead, communications are presumptively privileged, but that presumption can be overcome by establishing a serious need for the information. In the Watergate cases, the special prosecutor established the need for Nixon's tapes because they contained evidence related to pending criminal trials. However, where the information could be obtained through another source or is merely cumulative of other obtainable information, executive privilege will stand. Third, the courts are reluctant to step into an executive privilege dispute between Congress and the president. The courts will not resolve a dispute between these two branches unless the parties can establish that they have tried in good faith to reach an accommodation to obtain the materials. For Talking Feds, I'm Matthew Weiner.
Harry Litman [00:24:42] Thank you very much. Matthew Weiner. For all you fans of Mad Men and The Sopranos who haven't seen Matthew Weiner's latest project, The Romanoffs, it is really worth checking out. It's still streaming on Amazon Prime. It's a it's a different kind of series for him. Very lush and nuanced and kind of mysterious. It's set in different places around the globe with a different cast each week. And it centers on different stories about people who believe themselves to be descendants of the Russian royal family the Romanoffs. Check it out on Amazon Prime. All right. Back to Mr. Bolton. He returns to the Twitter fold this morning with a kind of a cryptic tweet. You know, he's he's very hard read right now. He's obviously crosswise with the administration. He has a new book and plans for the future. There is a relevant event for him coming up Monday when the district court is going to issue a ruling on the claim of Don McGahn not to testify. And it's widely anticipated by all or at the argument that Chief Judge Jackson is going to reject that claim. So it seems to me if Bolton really is itching to testify, he may have an excuse. But, of course, he'll be able to say that the administration will appeal right away. He'll be able to say it's still not over. What's up with him? Does he want to be out there? He does seem in this overall teasing mode. Any sense of where his head is and whether we will hear from him? It does seem to me that's the single most dramatic addition that could still occur.
Matt Miller [00:26:38] I think he's a very uncomplicated figure and he's a coward. I think if he wanted to testify at all, he would have been before the committee already. When he when he didn't actually end up filing suit. But he said that he would follow the court's order in the suit filed by his deputy. Knowing full well that that the court order would not come until the impeachment inquiry was wrapped up. And I mean that because the administration, even if even if he was ordered to testify by district court, the administration would certainly appeal to it. I think he wants to sell a book, and I think he doesn't want to come testify because he wants to have ongoing viability in the conservative world. He wants to be able to go on Fox to promote his book. He wants to be able to to stick around conservative circles. And if he came and testified against the president, he would lose the ability to do that. And I think at a time when, you know, when people like you, I think about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who has, as long as Donald Trump is president, has put his military career in jeopardy. And if you think Trump would reach down into the military to retaliate against Vindman and keep him from being promoted. You haven't watched what he's done with all these soldiers. All these soldiers charged with war crimes. When people are risking their careers. And Bolton, who's at the end of his career and doesn't need any more money and doesn't need any future government jobs for him to hide behind hide behind executive privilege like this and then tease things out on Twitter. I think it's just an absolute disgrace.
Harry Litman [00:28:06] And I think the other disgrace that came out this this week. I don't know if you guys heard our colleague Chuck Rosenberg excoriate Pompeo on television, but, you know, not it's not simply that they're not giving the the truthful account to the American people who deserve it. But he's been really complicit in a terrible kind of undercutting of the whole State Department, the whole sort of career corps there, which seems to be greatly, greatly demoralized as a result. Well, Frank, let's -- I want to go back for a second to this notion that that I teased out about possible criminal liability. So we know the whistleblower complaint comes out. We know that the Department of Justice determined that there wasn't even enough to open a criminal investigation, which is a very low threshold, some reasonable basis. And there was some confusing sort of bureaucratic back and forth where they suggested, well, we only thought we were looking at campaign finance. And we have this thing of value problem that I can say as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney is ludicrous. When you get a set of facts, you decide what possible charges could be involved. But whatever happened, happened. But what about the possibility now that the bureau is looking into and doing an investigation which it can start in on, it's on its own, technically into some of what we now have proof out there in the world enough to potentially start a criminal investigation involving Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani, who's already a subject for the southern district. Do do we think that there'll be a second bite at the apple there? And even with Bill Barr as Attorney General, the the other high level administrative officials could be in hot water.
Frank Figliuzzi [00:30:08] Great question, because there's been some reporting, as you know, Harry, that an FBI agent has contacted the whistleblowers attorney and sought to speak with the whistleblower. Lots of head scratching about what that means. It could be nothing more than a simple concern for his safety, but likely is more than that and could be another bite at the apple for the Bureau to say, wait a minute. We now have all this corroborating evidence from other witnesses. And so if we're going to do this right, we've got to start at the beginning and speak to the whistleblower. You've raised a much, much larger question, which is what would DOJ permit the FBI to do? Now, remember this whistleblower complaint got fired over across the street from DOJ to the bureau as DOJ tried to dump it in Chris Wray's lap and said, hey, here's this allegation. And Chris Wray rightly said, "This involves the President of the United States. Are you going to prosecute If we open a case and then, of course, they essentially got a declination. So one theory is that there's a counterintelligence concern that's developed about the national security.
Harry Litman [00:31:27] Yeah. Explain that.
Frank Figliuzzi [00:31:30] Well, I think there's less scrutiny from the Attorney General and less ability to say no from the Attorney General. If the bureau were to say, look, this is it, we're opening counter-intelligence case now.
Harry Litman [00:31:41] How would that work?
Frank Figliuzzi [00:31:44] It could be because they believe that there's been a compromise of security. There's certainly been an abuse of that secret database at the White House. And it could be that the classified addendum to the whistleblower complaint is where the Bureau is going. That there's some national security repercussions that have to be looked at. And, you know, people are going to kind of cringe when they hear this. But one possibility would be we're right back with the theory that somebody is doing this on behalf of Russia. In other words, if we're going to withhold Ukraine military aid and it's going to assist Russia, why is that happening? And then, of course, there is that criminal angle that's clearly there in terms of bribery and corruption that you could you could wiggle into. But start with the corruption case. I'm eager to hear if Natasha or Matt, with sources they may have, are hearing what this whole this attempt to contact a whistleblower.
Matt Miller [00:32:46] I haven't. I hope that's right. I will say I have a little bit of a worry. That Barr has ordered up a leak probe of the president's conversation with Zelinsky. There was public reporting about that before they declassified the transcript. It's the kind of thing you could see a retaliatory A.G. trying to go after. You haven't seen that yet but I have a worry in the back of my mind that they're there on a leak hunt because of that. I will say, though, I think there's another way that DOJ might come into this. And if you think about the way this investigation has proceeded, it is proceeded on a political track in the House Intelligence community. And there has been a criminal track out of the Southern District of New York, looking at Rudy Giuliani and Les Parness and Igor Fruman, I think, is how you say his name. And last night we saw a report that Parnas accompanied Giuliani when he met with the Zelinsky's aide in Madrid, that famous meeting where he had, I think, his first contract, his first contact with the Ukrainian government. And it seems to me as the Southern District of New York keeps proceeding along that criminal track and finds out everything that Parnas did and Parnas' attorney has been talking and I think being kind of silly, but eventually he's he's the kind of person you would expect to cooperate and give up Giuliani and give up other people. It's hard to see how they don't look at the political track and how these these kind of what have so far been separate tracks, how they don't eventually merge at the Southern District of New York. And I think the big question is, what does Bill Barr do if SDNY starts trying to go down that road?
Harry Litman [00:34:20] Yeah, no, I agree. But I'll just underscore the word eventually, you know, that we have, as with the courts, uncertainty about whether it will play out in relevant time. Parnas' attorney as I read that is really pushing for some kind of immunity deal. He wants Congress to give him immunity and he's made it seem that he can really sing. You know, stuff involving Trump directly. And we do know he's got pictures, but he's a really unsavory character. And my guess is both SDNY, which has had a partial cooperation with him. But the Congress kind of don't want a big part of him. It's related to this interesting point. I think that the question now will end with because it could be a whole episode in itself, but in some ways, this huge figure in the whole drama, second only to Trump. Rudy Giuliani himself has, no one's even talking about his his coming forward. And I think. Well, that's it. Do you do you see him as basically playing no role in the impeachment? Nobody trying to hear from him just kind of do both the Republicans and the Democrats basically want to keep him sidelined?
Frank Figliuzzi [00:35:39] I think he's so closely linked to the president that it would be dangerous for Republicans to bring him into this, because it's, he's just a step away from Trump. And I don't know how you bring him in and not throw Trump under the bus.
Harry Litman [00:35:54] And what about the Dems? Do they want him if they could get him because he doesn't have the same executive, same claims of privilege? I think just a really weak attorney client one. But I think the Dems are scared of him. Right. Not scared. But he's just like, what are they going to do to a such a nut? And he's going to he's going to be obstreperous. You know, why do why do we need him? It would be my sense of where Schiff is on this. I don't know. What do you think?
Matt Miller [00:36:18] I think the bigger issue is you'll never get him because he's the subject of criminal investigation now.
Harry Litman [00:36:22] And he would mean he'll take the fifth right away.
Matt Miller [00:36:24] Absolutely. And it's the same as Parnas, which is why you're right about him trying to get immunity. None of these guys are the subject of a criminal investigation are going to come talk to Congress. They're going to take the Fifth Amendment. And I think that that applies to Rudy. Absolutely. And there's just no point of Schiff and others wasting time on it.
Harry Litman [00:36:41] They've been very impressive that way. Right? Every everybody give very high marks to Schiff for the week, including on this point. I've just not, you know, spinning your wheels. Maybe the real contrast, say, with Nadlerr here, just like, OK. You're not going to cooperate? We'll put that into the other counts that we're going to be drafting about contempt for for for Congress and we'll move along, vote them out, and maybe looking toward a trial in January. OK. That brings us to our final feature of of Talking Feds Five Words or Fewer, where we take a question from a listener and each of the Feds has to answer in five words or fewer. And our question today comes from Linda Miller, who asks, along the apocalyptic lines we've been discussing, what happens if the entire White House is proven to be corrupt? Is it possible to remove the president, Vice president, Secretary of State, Chief of State, all at the same time. Five words or fewer. Frank, you want to take that one on?
Frank Figliuzzi [00:37:51] Yeah. My five word response would be yes. It's called an election.
Matt Miller [00:37:57] Yes, Frank stole my answer.
Harry Litman [00:37:59] Natasha?
Natasha Bertrand [00:38:00] I agree with Frank. Go out and vote.
Harry Litman [00:38:04] Yes. The Feds are all correct. All right. Thank you very much to Frank, Natasha and to Matt.
Harry Litman [00:38:13] And thank you, listeners for tuning in to Talking Feds. If you like what you heard, we subscribe to us on Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review this podcast or tell a friend about us. You can follow us on Twitter at Talking Feds Pod to find out about future episodes and other Feds related content. And you can also check us out on the web at Talking Feds dot com. Submit your questions to questions at Talking Feds dot com. Whether it's for Five Words or Fewer or general questions about the inner workings of the legal system for our sidebar segments. Thanks for tuning in and don't worry as long as you need answers. The Feds will keep talking.
Harry Litman [00:39:01] Talking Feds is produced by Jennie Josephson and Dave Moldovan, Anthony Lemos and Rebecca Lopatin. David Lieberman is our contributing writer. This episode edited by Jennifer Bassett. Production Assistance by Sam Trachtenberg and Sarah Philipoom. Thanks to the incredible Philip Glass who graciously lets us use his music and special thanks to Matthew Weiner for schooling us in the intricacies of executive privilege. Talking Feds is a production of Dalito LLC.
Harry Litman [00:39:37] I'm Harry Litman. See you next time.
