TF 24: Mooting Mueller
Harry Litman [00:00:10] [MUSIC BEGINS]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.
Harry Litman [00:00:20] I'm a former United States Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General and a current Washington Post columnist. We're here in Washington D.C. to tape a series of podcast episodes in front of a live audience just blocks from the Capitol Dome. We've had five episodes so far this week and we are in the home stretch. All this thanks to our gracious hosts at Georgetown Law's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. All this week we are talking about what happens, after Mueller. What are the challenges and prospects for our democratic institutions today.
Harry Litman [00:01:03] In two episodes we' re focused much more directly on what happens on the day of Robert Mueller's testimony to Congress on the 17th. We've just had a panel dealing with strategy and tactics that the House committees might consider, how they should in broad strokes go about trying to set goals and achieve them. So Ron Klain and Tim Lynch and Matt Miller and Andy McCabe had some really interesting things to say about the sort of broader strategy here. We end with a very sort of nuts and bolts panel styled, Mooting Mueller.
Harry Litman [00:01:45] To set it up a little so the questioning in the House of administration witnesses has been I think it's fair to say generally ineffective. The overall spectacle of these mini speeches with a little follow up, no use of evidence the Republicans breaking momentum with different screeds about the Steele dossier and the deep state has overall made for I think uncompelling television or trial and as a result the sort of truth seeking function not to mention the decorum and order of the House has not necessarily been well served.
Harry Litman [00:02:25] But we're we're here to really ask in some ways a counterfactual because unfortunately it's not going to happen we're not going to have skilled trial lawyers questioning Bob Mueller. But what should they be thinking of and if they could sort of channel the best trial lawyers in the country what would they do. Come Wednesday and to do that we have the best trial lawyers in the country to talk about you know the the challenge at the very level of questioning of Bob Mueller should the members be deferential but still probing should they try to elicit almost as admissions the most damning facts or should they try to go beyond the four corners. Not an easy task at all for a questioner a very difficult one.
Harry Litman [00:03:19] But again we couldn't do better than the three people with us today that helped to try to figure that out. So we have Glenn Kirschner who is he is the former chief of the homicide section at the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. But more than that he has been an AUSA for many years, Glenn about 30, all in all trial years experience.
Glenn Kirschner [00:03:43] Trial years experience. Yeah the first six plus came as an Army JAG in the trial courts doing court martial cases.
Harry Litman [00:03:49] Second we have William H. Jeffress Junior. He's a partner at Baker Botts. After clerking in the federal judiciary for Judges Gesell and then Justice Stewart. He he has all his career been basically one of the premier trial lawyers in the country you may remember him from the Scooter Libby case. But he is you know and just the an absolute expert in the in the art of trying a case. Bill thank you very much for coming.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:04:25] Happy to be here. And Elliot Williams, a returning Talking Fed. He's a principal now at the Raben Group but he is was also a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legislative Affairs and a former trial attorney in the DOJ. Was it the criminals.
Elliot Williams [00:04:45] Criminal Division at DOJ.
Harry Litman [00:04:46] Yeah. Right. So I'm he brings both the trial chops, I could say, but also the sense of the unusual setting of having questioning in the Congress which doesn't go by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Harry Litman [00:04:59] So basically here's the drill at least for the first big chunk of this episode, I really want to move Mueller in a real in a real way. You know. Pretend we are in a kind of strategy meaning in advance of the hearing. We're floating and critiquing concrete lines of testimony. I've asked Glenn Bill and Elliot to each work up you know an actual kind of examination and to do what prosecutors do, or I should say I'm sorry, what trial lawyers do which is you know carefully nit pick words word spec and explain each in turn and we will try to have the kind of lively critical, you know your best friends are your most critical colleagues in the, in the office who can make sure you really refine things before you go to the live event. The live event being the Mueller hearing.
Harry Litman [00:05:57] So I let's start please with Glenn down at the end and bring to bear his 30 years of trial experience and ask if you had your druthers and I think the country might be better served would be better served if you did. How exactly would you frame a sort of five minute examination of Bob Mueller and what would you be thinking about and doing and then everyone's going to just dive in and try to tear it to pieces.
Glenn Kirschner [00:06:31] You know Harry I think first of all my guiding principle as a trial court prosecutor for 30 years was what I learned in the army which is the abbreviation KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. That applies to me I'm a gutter guy from Jersey. So that principle always served me well in court. I think there is such a mountain of information that what you need to do is really keep your questions straightforward, digestible, simple, targeted. You can't ask all leading questions because you want Mueller saying.
Harry Litman [00:07:03] What's a leading question?
Glenn Kirschner [00:07:04] A leading question is where you box in the witness to answering only yes or no. Congressional questioners love to do that because they want to hear themselves talk. They don't necessarily want to elicit information from the witness. So I think you're gonna have to use a mixture of non-leading and leading questions. And I think there are three overarching goals in interviewing Special Counsel Mueller. The first is I think you want to focus, albeit briefly, on the Trump Russia collusion. Let's call it what it is. One hundred and forty contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russia to coordinate, so Trump could unfairly win the election. You want to keep that very targeted because we would all love to know you know, "Special Counsel Mueller why in the world couldn't you find enough evidence to charge a conspiracy?" As we all have at this table. I have indicted and tried conspiracy cases they're complicated. They're counterintuitive. And for every one fact that supports a conspiracy your opponent's gonna have three facts that undercut it.
[00:08:06] Let's not get into that morass in congressional--
Harry Litman [00:08:09] But you'll try to surface those facts like this cigar bar and the passing on of polling information or where do you--
Glenn Kirschner [00:08:16] I think in a very targeted fashion on that topic I would ask something like you know you've detailed extensive coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. Did you reach a determination as to who Russia was trying to help get elected Trump. Did you reach a determination about this is gonna be basic who they were trying to hurt who they didn't want to see elected. Hillary. And your findings in Vol. 1 document all this.
Harry Litman [00:08:46] All right. So first of all we're sticking with the trial lawyers adage of never asking a question you don't know the answer to.
Glenn Kirschner [00:08:51] Absolutely.
Harry Litman [00:08:53] And Bill you were nodding on that as well.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:08:56] That was what I was about to say in the beginning. You know it's a it's a general rule for trial lawyers you never ask a question to which you don't know the answer. And with Mueller that's gonna be easy to do. If the Congressmen can control themselves, because he's got 400 pages of a report that has a lot of good stuff in it if you're a Democrat, Democratic House members seeking to question him so you can ask the question and if you get an answer that you don't expect you can simply read from the report the answer that you want.
Harry Litman [00:09:28] Oh you're so, well give me it give me concretely how that works. So here I'll be Mueller. So Glenn, you're asking what. Go ahead.
Glenn Kirschner [00:09:38] So let me ask. I'll go to a different topic here. When you met with White House counsel McGahn.
Harry Litman [00:09:48] Yes.
Glenn Kirschner [00:09:49] Did you tell him that he, if he were to lie to you in that interview he would be committing a crime?
Harry Litman [00:09:58] I don't. Yeah. So I think on that he says you know, we would tell that to any witness. So yes.
Glenn Kirschner [00:10:03] OK OK. And when you spoke with Don McGahn. Did he try to invoke executive privilege? Did he try to avoid testifying or did he willingly tell you what he knew?
Harry Litman [00:10:18] He didn't try to invoke executive privilege.
Glenn Kirschner [00:10:20] While I'm at it, did he try to invoke absolute immunity?
Harry Litman [00:10:23] No. Okay. All right. So.
Glenn Kirschner [00:10:27] So that kind of you know that's kind of the pattern.
[00:10:30] And then so and pattern of, all right, so I see how you will sculpt things in general. Give me, give me five minutes, as any trial lawyer will tell you is a blink of an eye. Especially when, well it's not as if you're gonna have Mueller grandstanding, but will you, you know what is, what's an achievable bite size five minute conclusion that that you know you'll you would have you think what would be too much to bite off in five minutes and what's just about right.
Harry Litman [00:11:05] Actually, let me ask you that Elliot if you've thought.
Elliot Williams [00:11:07] Oh I have a lot of thoughts. So a couple of things, well one. One it's so fabulous to be here. It's great to see sort of old friends be- just touching on a point.
Elliot Williams [00:11:16] This is a little bit unrrelated, but-.
Harry Litman [00:11:17] Are you a Georgetown grad?
Elliot Williams [00:11:18] No. I said no like I was offended by the question right. No I'm not. So one big picture question because you know, as you said, you're your best friends are the most critical. It's always a little jarring being on a panel of all guys. And you know if we truly were the best trial lawyers in America we probably would have some women up here. Right. And now [CROSS TALK]
Harry Litman [00:11:38] Of course, for Talking feds I can say we say I tried.
Elliot Williams [00:11:42] I know.
Harry Litman [00:11:42] Some of them are extremely busy.
Elliot Williams [00:11:44] Yeah. No no no. No question about that. But it's no question about that. But as a profession we could always do better. I think it's a good moment to stop. So what I would say and just for a little bit of background so I worked one on the Hill for Senator Schumer on the Senate Judiciary Committee and then Legislative Affairs prepping witnesses. So I've done this a lot. And I think the key and the goal for the House Democrats here is just simply getting Robert Mueller not to stray from the four corners of the report and simply put the report on the record. And as we saw from that press conference.
Harry Litman [00:12:17] Let me stop you right there. That's I mean that's a really big question. I'd like to hea, we'll come right back to you Elliot. But I'd like to hear whether that was the vantage point that Glenn and Bill brought to this exercise because I see strong arguments on both sides. But why is this going to be a four corners thing only or not as you see it. Bill let me start with--.
Elliot Williams [00:12:38] And I hope we disagree because it'll make for a nice robust.
Harry Litman [00:12:41] I think I do. But go ahead.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:12:43] If I were a trial lawyer conducting this examination it would be on the four corners report.
Harry Litman [00:12:48] Because.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:12:49] That because the report which has been read by an infinitesimal number of people.
Harry Litman [00:12:54] Right.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:12:55] This is the opportunity to get the damning conclusions in that report in front of the public. And Mueller has made it very clear that he is not going to go beyond the four corners of the report in his testimony. If you attempt to do that you're likely to get pushback, you're likely to get him grumpy as he tends to be.
Harry Litman [00:13:16] By the way he probably legally has is not entitled to push about. But as a sort of strategic trial lawyer matter you're not going to get in a fight with Robert Mueller on Wednesday right?
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:13:27] There's no judge in the in the hearing room at Congress.
Harry Litman [00:13:31] So what is what's exactly that what does that mean? Why do you say that.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:13:35] Mueller will will essentially have the ability to limit himself, most of the time to the four corners of the report.
Harry Litman [00:13:41] We're getting nods all around.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:13:43] He will get some questions from Republicans about the Carter Page FISA warrant. He will get questions about Peter Strzok. He will get questions about various things that are not in the report and he won't be able to adhere to that. But generally speaking as far as his conclusions as to coordination or conspiracy with Russians the Russian effort to influence the election the obstruction of justice all those matters that are covered in the report he will have the ability to limit his questions to the four corners of the report if he insists on doing so.
Harry Litman [00:14:18] All right fair enough. But let's just be clear what we're giving up, so no effort for example to ask him anything along the lines of, "but for the OLC memo would you have found enough to criminally charge the president? Let's just start and you're shaking your head Glenn,because you think it's DOA or there's more more important stuff to get at. I mean that would be a great dividend for the Dems, right? If they could get him to just say those words. Because one of the big problems in public presentation is he had these like, he left these lacuna in his report that every time you come to the crux of things, if you're in the position of wanting to express them they get very complicated and prolix and you have to dance around them and you just don't have the punch line to give the public. So you're giving up on trying to get the punch line. You just want to say you know 10, the 10 things that you want to highlight.
Glenn Kirschner [00:15:17] Sure the punch line is the president committed 10 felony obstruction of justice offenses let's focus on that special counsel--
Harry Litman [00:15:24] Whoa,whoa whoa whoa because he doesn't, that's that's beyond the four corners.
Glenn Kirschner [00:15:28] No no know I'm answering your question.
Harry Litman [00:15:30] Oh I see.
[00:15:30] And I'm lockstep with your panel, because the last thing you want to do is play against yourself by fighting with Mueller and trying to persuade him to go beyond the four corners. You know Mueller taught me how to be a federal homicide prosecutor two blocks away at the U.S. Attorney's office. If Mueller doesn't want to answer Mueller aint gonna answer. And what that does is it undercuts everything he does say and it distracts and it it diverts attention away from the power of what's in Volume 2 so why in the world if you're a questioner who's interested in getting the truth to the American people and not as Bill said talking about dossiers and "but her e-mails" and you know spying on the camp, all that nonsense. If you want to get at the truth, stick to the four corners and don't push Mueller beyond where Mueller has already announced he's not interested in going.
Harry Litman [00:16:22] All right. And Elliot has a point he wants to interject but I just want to be clear. So you're saying on your 64,000 Dollar Question Are there 10 offenses, you will leave that behind you're not going to actually get him to try to say the words he that the president committed obstruction.
Glenn Kirschner [00:16:38] I'm going to ask him the facts the building blocks of each and stop. Yeah of each of those events. I mean I I can't wait to talk about his interaction with Corey Lewandowski which is insanely you know obstructionist.
Elliot Williams [00:16:51] So here's, there's a big thing that we're missing here and it's not just we shouldn't just think of this as litigation or trial but it's a political process as well. And the further use, and this is just dealing with Congress generally. The further you stray from what has already been put on the record in that report, the more the Democrats open themselves up to criticism from Republicans for, I mean it's always going to be a political partisan fight. But the more they go beyond the four corners of the report, the more they open themselves up to, and what they want to do with insulate themselves as much from the politics as much as they can. And I actually think there are three lines of questioning. Three very simple, and if they were disciplined now it's very hard to do this because what you have are in Congress 535 sui generis entities I don't know, It's Talking Feds do we speak in English?
Harry Litman [00:17:38] No, no no Latin's good on Talking Feds. Talking Fetis.
Elliot Williams [00:17:41] Talking Fetish. Unique 535 unique entities right that have their own political instincts and their own.
Harry Litman [00:17:47] And little fiefs.
Elliot Williams [00:17:48] And little fiefs that they need to speak to. But if you could control what they did, what you do as of the 24 Democratic Members. First you have somebody get on the record what probable cause is, now that's outside the bounds of the report. But Robert Mueller has been a prosecutor for a long time and can lay out what the probable cause standard is for indicting someone. You literally have Jerry Nadler or the first member of the committee walk through the probable OK. This is.
Harry Litman [00:18:11] What Mueller through probably cause.
Elliot Williams [00:18:13] And just this is what it takes to indict a case. All right, one.
Elliot Williams [00:18:17] Next line of questioning. You walk through the law of what does it take to bring an obstruction of justice charge. Three elements you need an obstructive act, a nexus to an official proceeding and corrupt intent. Just tell us what that means and what those terms are for the American-- No one can dispute that or fight with that. That's in the federal code right.
Harry Litman [00:18:35] All right. Nobody can say you're third and I have response.
Elliot Williams [00:18:38] And then the third I think then this is piggybacking onexactly on what Glenn just said, you walk through the facts of the allegations and I don't think you need to walk through all ten. I think you walk through the four on which you had, in which they were able to find all three elements were met. And those four were number one, efforts to fire Mueller. Number two, efforts to continue to curtail the investigation. You know Jeff Sessions having him- Number three ordering McGahn to deny that there was an attempt to fire Robert Mueller. And number four, the attempts to influence Paul Manafort. You literally have a member of Congress walk through the facts to say on X date.
Harry Litman [00:19:17] You don't necessarily use that title.
Elliot Williams [00:19:20] Literally on X date did did is, does your report say that you know you that the president called Don McGahn and told him X and Y and Z and the Don McGahn said this is crazy shit or whatever, and just have him walk through those facts.
Harry Litman [00:19:34] I want to push back now on on your one and two and see where Glenn and Bill might be. I'm reminded, well you know it was a similar kind of exercise short not not a ticking time clock with the Starr David Kendall face off and this and the Starr team spent all this time in Congress at the very beginning, going through what's an oath and the meaning of an oath. And I thought of that as quite ineffective. But so. So I'll. I would off offhand say, do you really, that because you always have the clock there, do you really want to take, you know, two or three of your best questioners and burn them on the proposition, this is probable cause and then on the maybe you do I'm not you know.
Elliot Williams [00:20:17] I'll tell you I'll tell you there's a big reason why I think you do. And it's the press conference that Robert Mueller gave a couple of weeks ago, I guess a couple months ago, where I think the most compelling words we've heard thus far were said by Robert Mueller on the record saying I could not, or we could not exonerate the president. You heard from.
Harry Litman [00:20:35] Those are applied facts again here, but not not here is what, you wanna lock him in--
Elliot Williams [00:20:37] But it's just out of his- Most people didn't read- Lock him in number one is as a litigator. Most people didn't read the report. Most Americans haven't connected with this esoteric 500 page legalistic redacted report. When you had a person saying into a microphone before the American people, I, you know, I were able to exonerate the president I would have or we would have that that generated headlines that excited people and that hopped up some of the same public excitement generally. And I think doing that again, but in a far more formal setting and it's dry, and it's not the way the members of Congress like to operate they want to give their speeches like Glenn had said. But you get it on the record.
Harry Litman [00:21:15] Okay so let's see what your colleagues say. So Bill you know on this specific issue of burning some time to, but to set the table with basic propositions have him committed to say the standard for probable cause. Worthwhile not worthwhile in this kind of exercise?
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:21:31] It's worthwhile more with an audience of lawyers than the audience that you're trying to reach here it seems to me. I think that the best approach is to bring out the facts which are damning as I say. I mean the facts stated in the report. If I could take just a couple of minutes and give you-
Harry Litman [00:21:50] Yeah. Please.
[00:21:51] -what I thought through. Yeah. I think one of the most extraordinary sections of the report is the actually the tenth of the obstruction of justice matters which has to do with Michael Cohen. And you could do an examination taken straight from the report where every question you're asking him is answered in the report and go through that.
Harry Litman [00:22:14] Give it to us.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:22:15] Did Michael Cohen lie to Congress in a written statement about the Trump Tower Moscow project? Before lying to Congress had he had extensive discussions with Trump's personal counsel about that written statement? And did the personal counsel advised him among other things not to contradict the president?
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:22:36] All the answers to this as I say are right in thereport.
Harry Litman [00:22:39] Yeah there's nowhere for him to go. Same thing, the questions Glenn asked me.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:22:43] Did Michael Cohen also provide news organizations with a false statement that the Trump Organization had not reimbursed him for one hundred and thirty thousand dollar payment to a porn star?
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:22:54] And after that false statement about the porn star, did you find the president's personal counsel sent him a text saying, "client thanks you for what you do."?
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:23:07] When a search warrant was executed on Cohen's home and office did the president call the raid a disgrace? Called it an attack on our country is that correct? The president called Michael Cohen directly? Encouraged him to hang in there and stay strong. That's the president speaking to Michael Cohen after the raid on Michael Cohen's office and home. And did the president call Michael Cohen publicly a fine person with a wonderful family who I have always liked and respected?
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:23:49] And after the raid did you find that Cohen was told by the president's personal counsel that he would be quote protected? So long as he didn't go rogue. Rogue meaning departing from the party line?
Harry Litman [00:24:06] By the way that you've just offered what wrote that that little sentence was not in the report right?
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:24:10] No.
Harry Litman [00:24:11] But he's going to have to say yes to that so so far.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:24:13] Whatever he says in response to that it's got to be good.
Harry Litman [00:24:15] Yeah. Okay.
Elliot Williams [00:24:16] Let me add one quick point. .
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:24:19] That's my opinion.
Elliot Williams [00:24:19] Why I maintain though that that the of the. So the 24 Democratic members right. That's 120 minutes roughly. You know why you use five minutes to talk about probable cause, because a relevant portion of this is what it would have taken to charge an individual. The public doesn't know that, the public just knows there's generally bad conduct that happened. And I think taking a couple of minutes to say this is what it is to bring an indictment. This is what it meant that we were, were it not for the OLC opinion we would have been prepared to bring these charges against President the United States. Now Mueller would not use those exact words a member of Congress could use those words, but I still think you have to at least set that even cursory legal framework just so people know what you're talking about here because I think you know people just don't quite understand what these concepts their second nature to all of us would mean.
Harry Litman [00:25:08] OK. And the question is will you do that through Mueller or some other way. But Bill we you certainly gave us the flavor but you probably have that this line goes . on a while right?
[00:25:17] Well the important things is then something changed.
Harry Litman [00:25:21] Right.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:25:22] And you ask Mueller, well you know the president after going through all the president he's a fine person well respected. Love his family and so forth. Things change. When did they change? In the summer of 2018,Cohen agreed to plead guilty and to cooperate and to testify truthfully to you and to the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. Suddenly, is it true that Trump called him a quote weak person. Called him a quote rat. Suggested that his wife and father in law had committed crimes and were being let off the hook?
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:26:06] So. There is I have debated whether to ask Mueller this. But you know Mr. Mueller he certainly knows this although it's not in his report. There is also a statute called Title 18 United States Code 1513 which is retaliation against witnesses correct? And that punishes anybody who cause any harm to anybody to an individual for truthful information provided by that person to law enforcement officials.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:26:36] Soon as Mr. Trump learned that Michael Cohen was going to cooperate he attacked him, attacked his family. Did you make a judgment as to whether that's prosecutable under 1513. Now that's the one question I don't know the answer to because it's not in his report but that's certainly a point that I thought was important.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:26:58] So when my statement and then you wind it up you say Well Mr. Mueller on page 154 of your report, you say the president used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, then turn to attacks and intimidation to deter provision of information or undermine Cohen's credibility after he began cooperation.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:27:25] And then yeah I think he wandered up to say Mr. Mueller. You. As you say in your report you declined to reach a conclusion or to state a conclusion as to whether the president was guilty of destructing justice. But you say that, while this report does not conclude that the president commit a crime, it also does not exonerate him. And that's true as to the evidence that you found, as to Michael Cohen, you know that kind of. That's the way I think I would do it.
Harry Litman [00:28:03] Let me offer some just commentary as a student. So I think I think so as I'm listening to each question in this kind of exercise which I've had and all of us have had and sort of real of time I'm thinking at each question, can I wriggle out. I'm Moeller. Can I wriggle and I you know I think I follow each one and basically Bill has me, every time except the small exception and that he noted himself which is maybe it's okay to deviate rarely from the maxim of you know the answer if you've considered as you as you heard him say either way it's gonna work out OK. But you know he I think he probably spent a lot of time and they'd be well advised to spend a lot of time and they won't spend a lot of time but really carefully selecting a scenario to walk through fact of the time not simply based on how bad the conduct is but one that will present well and have like little methodical steps that as as he just gave. And then the final point I'd make, that I think the best, I don't count myself among them but I I know 'em when I see 'em, that the best trial lawyers do,
Harry Litman [00:29:19] He stopped a sentence short, he didn't say So, aren't you saying really that he obstructed. That's because if you do that and he doesn't give it to you, now you've you've ended on a deflated point. Whereas if you let the listeners hear that the TV audience, you know, get there in their minds in some ways it's even you know a better way to go. So I have no, I have no, I can't I can't argue against any any question you made. Glenn, what else you got on.
Glenn Kirschner [00:29:53] Yeah. So first of all I love Bill's direct examination and I'm kind of need his card before I leave in case I get in trouble in the future. And I agree the 1513, threatening a witness question is a tough one, because I don't think Mueller will be pushed there. And if he if he is unwilling to answer that or he equivocate or he then I think you we've knocked ourselves down a notch.
Harry Litman [00:30:17] That's a question. Is it a buzz kill or do people just kind of hear it and it goes on. And that's a judgment call for a trial lawyer.
Glenn Kirschner [00:30:24] Here's one of the other things that I think should be a goal of these hearings. This is a hearts and mind hearing. I think as Elliot said, this this is not a court proceeding.
Harry Litman [00:30:32] Right.
[00:30:33] So you have to approach it differently and because what we know is that the public has heard ad nauseum no obstruction no collusion no obstruction no collusion. You'd need to combat that with this hearing. How do you do that with Mueller. I think the way you do it potentially is by trying to get a couple of true false questions in there that are directly designed to rebut no obstruction no collusion. So I think what I would do is I would say you know special counsel Mueller, you have heard endlessly President Trump say your report your investigation found no obstruction, no collusion. Let's turn to Volume 1. True or false. Did your report find no collusion? I think he's got to say false. We did not find no collusion.
Glenn Kirschner [00:31:26] Let's turn to volume 2 -
[00:31:27] And by the way think about this for a second if you're listening today the eight ways you could have tried to frame that question, six of which would have would have fallen flat. You know I mean the way Glenn did he basically boxes him in in one question go ahead.
Glenn Kirschner [00:31:42] Same with Volume 2. You've heard endlessly from both Trump and now from Attorney General Barr, did he participate in your investigation? No he didn't interview any witnesses. Okay let me let me just move on.
Glenn Kirschner [00:31:53] Did your report invite.
Harry Litman [00:31:55] Why'd? Why'd You just move on why. Why was this.
[00:31:57] That was my smart alec jersey guy thing.
Harry Litman [00:31:58] Exactly right. He he he intimates there's maybe some daylight between somebody doesn't push him to the question where again he'll probably lose.
Glenn Kirschner [00:32:07] What we call poisoning the well.
Glenn Kirschner [00:32:09] So then I would say true or false. Did your report in volume to find no obstruction. No it did not. That's false. Now it's I think incumbent upon the media every time we run a clip of the president saying no obstruction no collusion of Bill Barr saying it of Lindsey Graham saying Mitch McConnell saying it. We absolutely are responsible we owe it to the American people to instantly put up Bob Mueller saying that's false my report did not find no obstruction no collusion and that is a hearts and mind thing not an evidentiary we're building the elements of any particular obstruction charge. But I think that's one of the most important goals of this hearing.
Harry Litman [00:32:53] So this is an excellent point you apply you're not just thinking about the arena there, but you're being having a little bit of a longer term strategy of where's it going to be played out weeks to come. On the on the war between sound bites on TV. Elliot, you had a thought.
Elliot Williams [00:33:09] Yeah. So interesting we've talked about Democrats versus Republicans here. But an important point to note about the makeup of this committee. So the Republicans are all together and the Democrats largely are not. There is a core of folks on the committee who are sort of in the pro impeachment inquiry camp. And then you know starting with the chair sort of saying well what's wait till the facts are out there. If I had to give advice to the pro impeachment inquiry folks I'm just sort of by split up the Democratic Caucus.
Elliot Williams [00:33:37] Here's what you do. You read this quote to Robert Mueller from from from his report. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no one is above the law.
[00:33:58] And you just read him that and ask him and what does that mean. What what did you mean by that did you mean were you sending this to us as an investigative body to where you punting that to Congress and either let him say no. But he can't because that's a paragraph that explicitly kicks this issue over to Congress. And if you are to represent David Cicilline or Ted Lieu or Pramila Jayapal some of the folks on the committee who've been out there on this issue, you get him to say or not say well you know look I'm the law enforcement person. I wasn't going to resolve this but it's up to Congress. And even if he won't say it they can say it for him. And I think that makes if this is if this is truly a hearts and minds thing. And if they are trying to win support for impeaching the president what you do is you guys report back to him and get him in effect to say it or make the laws.
Harry Litman [00:34:45] Quoting him. is impeccable and then getting just notice. I think you've kind of dipped your toe into the ocean that that would be great in a normal trial and a hostile witness of getting some impressions out of him. But you have taken that extra step. What did you mean. And you know and so you've I think is it fair to say kind of face that whole category and said maybe I will dabble in that. I mean let me ask you well so Bill were there any lines when we were thinking about this for a day were there any lines of testimony that if he had to take a chance. You know you what you gave us was it was seemed pretty bullet proof.
Harry Litman [00:35:22] Were there any kind of slightly higher risk but higher reward why they did it did it just seem axiomatic to you that all your testimony and examination should be of this sort of you know, sentence in the report, sentence in in the in a question.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:35:41] Well I tell you I would love if I got the opportunity to question more I would love the opportunity to ask him what he thought of Attorney General Barr's statement four days after he read the report. I think you would probably get Mueller to say that he thought it unfairly described the conclusions of the report who incompletely. I would like to ask him about Attorney General Barr's public statements of disagreement with Mueller. Barr never talked to the witnesses never saw the evidence Mueller had a team of 17 lawyers that work for two years and made a report or hasn't even even when they asked for it. And in four days a political appointee or two political appointees, if you count Rod Rosenstein announce that we've concluded the president's citizen and I would like to make a big deal of that.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:36:38] But that's high risk.
Harry Litman [00:36:39] Well I'm not saying you would let me just follow up. So I hear you saying that you'd love to but you're probably not going to do it. Is that right you're probably going to stay your hand or does it say. I mean one of the calculations I think for a trial lawyer is where do I start here and do I have to take these risks or do I have a sort of say you know do I swing for the fences as we've said and other things or or you know just go with the.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:37:06] One thing you do as a trial lawyer is you've got some questions in your mind that you might want to ask the witness and you watch the witness in the first 15 minutes of his cross-examination and you get a pretty good feel for whether you can take that.
Elliot Williams [00:37:20] But here's where you look. Let's talk about trial. You have a way to I hesitate to say impeach the witness, you know where you contradict with a prior state. But you're not really impeaching him. He wrote a letter to Barr raising issues with Barr's characterization. So even if he doesn't want to answer the questions directly in the way that Bill is talking about you say we can. So tell me about the drafting of this letter that you put together and it seems to me that you're expressing concern with how the attorney general characterized isn't that accurate and get him to say no or not.
Glenn Kirschner [00:37:54] Here's the thing. I mean yes we can impeach him. We can use his own words to further talk about the disagreement he had with Barr. I just don't know that that is really what's moving public opinion.
Elliot Williams [00:38:08] That's fine. But again you're getting the words that he has already put out there in there and you're just.
Glenn Kirschner [00:38:15] But I think I think is the stuff you want to get out there though is this insanity that the president engaged in with Corey Lewandowski.
[00:38:23] Corey Lewandowski, private citizen, not administration member is told by Trump, go talk to Sessions, you tell Sessions that he better limit Mueller's investigation into me, that is into past possible coordination between my campaign and the Russians. And I want you to tell him only to investigate future and or interference. And let me just finish the charges or future interference crimes that haven't. We're not pre cogs. That's not the way investigations work. Right. And then you know what if he won't do it I want you, Corey Lewandowski, private citizen, to fire the Attorney General. That is like major High Crimes and Misdemeanors treasure trove right there. And that's what we have to focus, I think the American people.
Elliot Williams [00:39:15] Just a point of clarification for the non lawyers that might be listening to this as well because we were using the word impeach in two different ways.
Harry Litman [00:39:22] Was very good point.
Elliot Williams [00:39:22] There's impeaching a high official and impeaching a president of the United States. Which is sort of what I talked about when I talked about you know the members of Congress who want to impeach the president. When we speak as lawyers about impeaching a witness, you're saying essentially to contradict the witness with their own credibility or prior statements or so on. So Glenn Kirschner says it's raining today. I have a letter or a statement from Glenn that says no it's actually I'm I'm wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella. I've impeached his statement or his testimony.
Harry Litman [00:39:50] Alright now Glenn we had kind of just your MSNBC presentation there with arms up et cetera and we had from Bill a very kind of dry fact you know base. You've got this special problem of Mueller with you know almost infinite dignity that he brings to the chair. Tell us a little bit about your tone and in particular are you even like one or two percent biting or are sharp or are you are are you completely neutral tell us about your tone when you approach him.
Glenn Kirschner [00:40:29] You have to gauge the room and you have to gauge the witness and by the way is the roomCongress? Is the room the room.
[00:40:36] Theroom is the American people.
Harry Litman [00:40:37] OK, that's a big room.
Glenn Kirschner [00:40:38] I have cross examined the mother of a defendant who came in and provided a false alibi for her son, one way. I have cross-examined a different mother of a defendant who was providing a false alibi for her son and was just a very nasty human being. I treated her another way. You have to gauge the room. There is no one size fits all approach. Now I can tell you with Mueller I am probably going to be respectful but I'm going to be firm and I'm going to get a little bit animated. But I am certainly not going to be bombastic. I'm going to treat Mueller the way and in part you have to see how Mueller is communicating on one point on that.
Elliot Williams [00:41:20] OK. Well one point on that. And having done this about a hundred times in Congress for different witnesses. Let's be clear he's be robbed. He's Robert Mueller. He's Robert Mueller. Full stop. But he's not a friendly witness to the committee. He is not in the sense that when when typically congressional hearings you will have majority witnesses and minority witnesses where the Democrats will invite a couple shills for them to testify. And the Republicans will get one. He is not there to be anyone's friend.
Glenn Kirschner [00:41:49] Nor is he hostile. He's neutral.
Elliot Williams [00:41:49] I know well, but again he does not wish for the purposes of congressional hearing congressional testimony. He does not wish to be there. He's not like anybody who looks forward to congressional testimony. But this is an odd hearing in that the very guy who was the center of your hearing has made clear that he doesn't wish to be a witness. And they need again respectful firm and so on. But when he starts punting on questions that there are clear answers to they need to be willing to challenge that.
Harry Litman [00:42:20] Bill? Tone. Including do you have any instances where you go off of neutral into either a little bit of emotion incredulity credulity whatever or is your strong assumption that you're you're flat and straightforward. Soup to nuts.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:42:37] Well if it were me as a trial lawyer and I'm trying the case before the jury I would be flat. But in Congressional hearings that in my experience is not the practice of the interrogators. I'm sure that there will be plenty of plenty of drama and acting going on. But I I think that you know, besides the attitude and I agree completely with what Elliot said about treating Mueller, I think the Democrats need to treat him with respect. The Republicans are certainly going to pursue, people like Jim Jordan, Matt Goetz, they are going to pursue the witch hunt theory. They are going to ask him about Peter Strzok and his role and they're going to read from some of Peter's Strzok's texts to his paramour.
Harry Litman [00:43:31] And will your questioning in any way take account of what they're going to do. I assume you just ignore them 100 percent.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:43:36] You have to prepare for that. I think you have to prepare for Peter Strzok didn't write one word of this report.
Harry Litman [00:43:40] Did he.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:43:42] Didn't participate in any of the discussions about what the report would say. I mean I think you have to have a line of questioning that deals with that saying.
Harry Litman [00:43:48] Everyone's agreeing here.
Glenn Kirschner [00:43:49] But let me ask you Bill about that don't you think Mueller might be at his most vigorous when he's defending the FBI.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:43:56] Yes I do.
Glenn Kirschner [00:43:57] And that's why I think he will handle the Strzok stuff and the nonsense you know fairly well.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:44:03] I certainly would hope so. And I'd like to be prepared. I'd say there's another thing in the report that I'm sure the Republicans are going to pounce on which is that this whole investigation started as we know with warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against Carter Page which were renewed three or four times as a result of Mueller's investigation. He did not find that Carter Page violated any law. And I'm sure that the Republicans are going to pounce on that because one of their great talking points is that this whole thing was an effort by the Democrats to repeal the election and and so forth and so on. And Mueller needs to be prepared for that because that is certainly going to be it.
Harry Litman [00:44:46] Although to Elliot's point in terms of his not being a friend and either a neutral or quite he's not going he'll be prepared himself. But you will not have the opportunity as you would with a witness who were directly questioning to to have any kind of advance discussion where could I mean I guess this is why you're sticking to the four corners but can you can you envision places where he could really surprise you in a good way. You know we talked about sort of sort of risk both but what might what might be as you sort of survey the whole landscape of what he might give you and what he won't you know what's what's sort of in the in the calculus that you know maybe you'd get from him and makes you sort of go forward.
Harry Litman [00:45:36] I've got I've been seeing I'm seeing nods.
Glenn Kirschner [00:45:38] Bob doesn't do surprise.
Harry Litman [00:45:39] Yeah yeah.
Elliot Williams [00:45:40] And in general there's a watchword that all of you are agreeing with which is you're not you're not going to be going outside yourself much in your in in your test. You're not going to try very hard at all you want to decide in advance what you can get and stick to it.
Elliot Williams [00:45:54] Glenn frames it as Bob doesn't do surprise, I'm also framing it as, he's just a singularly skilled witness and just knows, he said he's not going to stray from the four corners of the report and damned if they're going to get him to do it.
Harry Litman [00:46:06] But you'll agree don't you that he's actually he's so either polite or dutiful or whatever. He's not a the kind of witness he'll be looking to shut them down. He'll respond. You agree right.
Glenn Kirschner [00:46:18] I agree. He will be responsive. Yeah.
Harry Litman [00:46:20] Yeah. Which is saying something. How what what stance will he take. Do you think his, snytime you go outside the four corners he says, I just want I want you to know I just don't talk or does it do you. Does he. As he's done in the past. Tease it out a little and then and then come back. I mean do you. Do you see. And how is he going to do it.
Glenn Kirschner [00:46:43] Yeah. So I think that's one of the most interesting questions Harry if he's listen. He takes his oath as seriously as any person on this planet not more the right hand and swears to tell the truth.
[00:46:53] If he's asked questions that do not implicate grand jury secrecy information that he would be prohibited from talking about if he's asked questions that don't implicate the ongoing investigations. So that yes it's outside the four corners of his report but there's no prohibition other than his visceral desire not to go beyond the four corners important nobody. Then I think Mueller has a little mini battle going on inside of him because he raised his right hand and swore to tell the whole truth. So I think he ultimately may be pushed beyond the four corners just abiding by the oath.
Harry Litman [00:47:31] What about this do you push him to give a general defense of the FBI? Right that could be a really good moment and it's been absent for for years. It's not in the four corners. But do you get him to respond to the 13 angry Democrat blah blah blah.
Glenn Kirschner [00:47:45] It's a great question because he's going to do one of two things he's going to launch in to the defense of the FBI that I would launch into if it were me right and half as circumspect as Bob Mueller. Or he will say, Congressman if you have a direct question please ask it.
Harry Litman [00:48:00] Bill?
[00:48:01] I think what Glenn just said is exactly how he's going to approach it.
Harry Litman [00:48:07] But he said two things though.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:48:09] He's not going to offer any opinions that he doesn't that aren't in response to a direct question. I think he is going to be a reticent. I guess that's a good word that's that he's going to be a reticent witness.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:48:22] He's not gonna be volunteering for you.
Harry Litman [00:48:24] So you don't serve up the chance to defend the FBI probably.
William Jeffress, Jr. [00:48:28] Well I think that's an interesting idea. I hadn't thought about that. I'm sure that you would get nothing but if what you want to do is defend the FBI you would get nothing but favorable testimony from Bob Mueller .
Harry Litman [00:48:38] And then again if you're thinking in terms of it's a very funny kind of exercise because you are thinking in terms of a the American people as opposed the room and b the American people digesting 15 second little warring soundbites and this might be quite a.
Glenn Kirschner [00:48:53] Are you going to win the hearts and minds of the American people by having Mueller defend an institution he headed for years rr do we need to continue to focus on the president's misconduct.
Harry Litman [00:49:03] Right.
Harry Litman [00:49:04] You know and I'd like to go we've done this and every panel this is our last book and Elliot Bill and Glenn thank you so much for being here a broader hearts and minds question that we've asked everyone to sort of consider, which is you know the sort of stakes and prospects of what we are looking at.
Harry Litman [00:49:25] What are you know how serious a spot are we as a republic and an experiment in democracy in. Do you, if you had to sort of look forward to you know a year or maybe five or maybe if he rolls out the tank seven had to wait at the time after Trump is out of office. Are we looking at permanent damage to in our context the very idea of truth to the general respect for democratic institutions and the stability that it brings. You know how bullish or bearish Are you on the overall stakes other than Trump's actual guilt that that these you know these three years seem to serve up. And can I just go down though start with you Elliot.
Elliot Williams [00:50:21] Sure. I would give two different answers depending on whether I'm answering pre January 20th 2017 or post January 20th 2017,.
Harry Litman [00:50:30] You mean 2017 not 202?
Elliot Williams [00:50:32] 2017. Because the norms of government have shifted in this administration now or at least under this president. Now that may change and we meet may end up back in a place where allegations like these would have sunk a president a long time ago George W. Bush were this were the information to have come out he would probably would not have still been president today or Barack Obama. And so on.
Elliot Williams [00:50:55] So just a couple of quick examples on norms that point from the last week or two. Number one Kellyanne Conway. This is off topic today but there is a finding from it from a different special counsel a Republican and right earner special counsel that she ought to have been terminated for violating the Hatch Act. Now all of us in some form are former government employees and know the Hatch Act is no joke. And it is it comes with a sanction of termination and they brushed it off as if it was you know more deep state meddling and the exercise of her free speech rights because the norms do not apply. The president I mean we're as we're taping this right now. The president is speaking with respect to the Census matter where the Supreme Court has given a clear directive the lower courts and the litigant as to how to proceed. And the president there's talk again this may when this airs we'll know the outcome of this. I've just you know circumventing the Supreme Court of the federal courts with an executive order because the norms of government that we are used to do not apply. And so will things change based on this. Yes it should have. If this were Jimmy Carter I mean I'll just run down the list of the prior series of presidents. Yes it would. Things would have been totally different. But unfortunately we are just in a different era now. And the question is whether that era ends on January 21st or 20th 20 21 or if these are now the norms of government. And when a federal court makes a ruling or when a special count often special counsel makes a ruling or when Congress subpoenas individuals that they'll be complied with. I just don't know the answer to that.
Harry Litman [00:52:30] Bill.
[00:52:31] Well I agree. Norms have changed. And as far as this whole scandal that we've been discussing today that was investigated by Mr. Mueller we'll survive that we've survived plenty of scandals in the past. The things that make me apprehensive about the. Future is the wholesale retreat from our leadership of the free world and are our. Alliances with our friends. And second that you mentioned here the assault on the press. The irrelevance of truth. Alternative What. What was the word alternative facts. Alternative facts. Enemy press being the enemy of the people. That worries me long term and I think that maybe those two things may be harder to turn around.
Harry Litman [00:53:20] Glenn.
[00:53:21] So I have been of the belief that you know we the people in our democracy are stronger than Trump. But I was more optimistic yesterday than I am today because if in fact Trump tries to put a citizenship question on the census ignoring and basically telling the Supreme Court to take a flying leap we are now in constitutional crisis territory where if Trump will not abide by the rulings of our courts he can then call off the 2020 election and name himself king. He can imprison his political opponents because the court if he's ignoring the court's authority then and the Republicans refuse to stand up to it and put a stop to it. There is literally very little hope for the continued health of our democracy.
Harry Litman [00:54:22] You know it's just so remarkable that you see in a naked way that the most axiomatic rules of the road in fact, are you know underneath it rely on on the will and good faith of political actors and it could really go that way. I personally saw it initially as all kind of buffoonery. Then I saw it as pretty serious but short lived. And yes I'm of the view it's not been the most sanguine set of responses on all of these panels but I'm of the view that that at a minimum even granting as I basically would the a, the remaining strength of the institutions and b, the probable consensus view of a majority of Americans if it's put to them in favor of these institutions that there will be at best. Years of work to to get back to anything close to the unquestioned status that the that just idea of rule of law and constitutionalism enjoyed before January 2017.
Harry Litman [00:55:29] All right now that we end on that as we did the last panel where we ended on somewhat glum note. But you know I think that's that's the in fact the state of play.
Harry Litman [00:55:40] So thank you very much Glenn. Thank you very much Bill. Thank you very much Elliot for coming today and especially I this what we'd really like try to do on talking fence for getting nitty and gritty and exactly you know at the level of a trial lawyers not just prosecutors art.
Harry Litman [00:55:59] We have time for questioning.
Audience Member [00:56:01] Thank you for the discussion this afternoon. This is my third panel that I've watched. All three have been very exciting and I thank you for all the other panelists. My question relates to the last topic about the lingering legacy the Civil War ended over 150 years ago. Yet you still see Confederate flags. One hundred and fifty years from now are we going to MAGA hats.
Elliot Williams [00:56:30] One thing I have said a bunch of times before that I do want and again this either applies in 2021 or 2025 I guess that I actually think Donald Trump ex president is far more destructive to the union the Donald Trump president. Because of his ability if he's if he's expending so much effort at undermining institutions while president imagine that from the outside so maybe you see MAGA hats who knows but I actually think still the the the president's capacity to rile people up I think will continue to be a challenge for the Republic even after he's president.
Harry Litman [00:57:08] But I would just add the bigger challenge is going to be you could imagine say the Democrats take power but act but decide to indulge a little bit in Trumpism because you know given the way it worked or out of petty impulses or three presidents down the line.
Harry Litman [00:57:24] So I agree when you think about him as a sort of vigilante force post present and it is alarming but I mean there's a worry that that you know that at the end neither the actual leaders nor the public will have the kind of sense of inviolability of things that in fact now have been violated.
Harry Litman [00:57:46] Well you know in March and Feb. When these first things would happen my head was going around 360 degrees you know twice a week and now it's just it just seems more of the same.
Harry Litman [00:57:56] And if that feeling abides Trump or no Trump you know that's when we're I think actually a step or two away from you know toward name it. Not not not Peru ever. Well but but Greece Turkey whatever I mean. We have fallen in the. In the capital what really sustains us. That's dramatic. But you know something like that seems actually on the table.
Jennie Josephson [00:58:22] Your producer has a question OK. So it is taken as a given that Robert Mueller across all of our panels will not stray from the four corners of the report and if he does it'll be so minor or whatever. I guess my question is for any of you that have worked with him or know him well. And I just have to ask this 100 times. Why not. If you're dealing with someone who cares so much about the rule of law and process and what is what makes up the fabric of our democracy which is essentially an adherence to this constitution document and the laws that descend thereof isn't are we at a point where he should stray just a little if led down the path?
Glenn Kirschner [00:59:06] He he thinks this is my view of it. He thinks he's honoring the rule of law by not straying from the report. He documented in that report all of the evidence that any reasonable rational objective person needs to conclude that the president committed offenses and that probably far exceed what are required to prove high crimes and misdemeanors. But he has announced his sense of fairness dictates that because the criminal justice system is not the place for this issue to be litigated it's for the Congress to now litigate this issue in an impeachment hearing and a removal trial. It would be unfair of him to put his thumb on the scale by standing up and saying let me go a little bit further than I went in my report. He committed crimes. He gave us the building blocks for Congress to reach that conclusion. He actually thinks he's honoring the rule of law and we can debate the wisdom of that all day long by not going any farther than he has gone. He's a man of complete principle and integrity even if sometimes his circumspection frustrates the heck out of us. That's my view.
Jennie Josephson [01:00:21] And then what happens if the American people decide they're just like a little too overwhelmed or oversaturated or over informed or just undereducated and they just don't care anymore about the rule of law. This is my dark.
Glenn Kirschner [01:00:34] Well it seems like the Republicans don't care much about the rule of law at this moment either. So and we may not even get impeachment hearings open. I have no idea whether we will or not. So you know I think Bob Mueller did his job and it's now time for Congress to do its job.
Harry Litman [01:00:51] And there is an end. Thanks again, will you join me in thanking the panel please.
[01:01:02] [APPLAUSE].
Harry Litman [01:01:02] Thank you very much listeners for tuning in to Talking Feds if you like what you've heard. Please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts and please take a moment to rate and review this podcast. You can follow us on Twitter at Talking Fed's pod to find out about future episodes and other Feds related content. And you can also check us out on the web at talking Fed dot com where we have full episode transcripts and at talking Feds dot com slash News for information about this series in Washington D.C.. 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 segment. Thanks for tuning in.
Harry Litman [01:02:01] And don't worry as long as you need answers the feds will keep talking. Talking feds is produced by Jennie Josephson Dave Moldovan Anthony Lemos and Rebecca Lopatin. David Lieberman is our contributing writer.
[01:02:24] Production assistance by Sarah Phillipoom, Michelle Bo Liu and Courtney Columbus. Thanks to the incredible Philip Glass who graciously lets us use his music. Talking Feds is a production of Dalito LLC.
[01:02:43] I'm Harry Litman. See you next time.
