Podcast Summary: Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, Justice, and the Courts
Episode: All The President's Lawyers
Date: March 17, 2018

Episode Overview

This episode of Amicus is a deep dive into the legal, ethical, and procedural issues surrounding the Mueller probe, with particular focus on the financial and white-collar crime aspects. Host Dahlia Lithwick aims to clarify what matters in the sprawling investigation, especially regarding the infamous "follow the money" thread, and explores the distinct roles and responsibilities of the President’s lawyers, including White House Counsel. Featured guests are Professor Jennifer Taub, expert in corporate governance and white-collar crime, and Bob Bauer, former White House Counsel under President Obama.

Part 1: Following the Money in the Mueller Probe

Guest: Jennifer Taub
Starts ~03:13

Key Topics & Insights

The Scope of Mueller's Mandate

• Three-Part Mandate:
  • Investigate coordination between Trump campaign and Russia.
  • Prosecute obstruction or interference with the investigation (e.g., false statements).
  • Investigate any crimes discovered in the process.
    [04:30]

The Seychelles Meeting & Back Channels

• Focus on meetings involving Erik Prince and a Russian banker in the Seychelles, and the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016.
• "If we step back a bit, Mueller's mandate is really three parts…" – Jennifer Taub [03:55]
• The Seychelles meeting could suggest post-election coordination or setup of a back channel with Russia for undisclosed purposes.
• Possible false statement charges against Erik Prince arising from conflicting testimonies about these meetings.
  [06:30–07:00]

Collusion vs. Conspiracy

• Reminder: There is no federal crime of "collusion;" the legal issues involve "conspiracy."
• Two branches of conspiracy: (1) to defraud the United States and (2) to violate another federal law.
• "There's no federal crime called collusion. There is a federal crime called conspiracy…" – Jennifer Taub [07:34]

Who Has Been Charged and Why It Matters

In-depth breakdown at [08:56]:

• George Papadopoulos: Guilty plea for false statements to the FBI.
• Michael Flynn: Guilty plea for false statements regarding communication with Russian ambassador.
• Rick Gates: Pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the US and false statements.
• Alex van der Zwaan (misidentified as “Alex Sanders Wan”): Pled guilty to false statements.
• Richard Pinedo: Guilty plea for identity fraud.
• Paul Manafort: Multiple indictments, strong ties to Russian interests, not pled, possible motivations include clearing massive debts to Russian oligarchs.
• Manafort's deep financial and personal connections to Russian figures like Oleg Deripaska are seen as a critical part of potential motives for collusion.
  [08:56–13:17]

Motives, Financial Entanglements, and Emoluments

• The real question is not just secret meetings, but "why" and "why the secrecy or lying?"
• Many key figures had major unresolved debts or business interests potentially influencing their actions.
• “What did they owe and when did they owe it? Or really, what did they owe and to whom did they owe it?” – Jennifer Taub [15:48]

Roll-Up Tactics, From Gates to Kushner

Discussion at [17:09–18:27]:

• The investigation appears to be building cases up the chain, from smaller participants to senior Trump associates like Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr.

Campaign Finance Law and the Trump Tower Meeting

• Discussion of potential campaign finance violations regarding soliciting or accepting anything of value from foreign nationals, including opposition research.
• “The main question there is whether the special counsel will consider… opposition research …to be a thing of value, which is prohibited.” – Jennifer Taub [18:31]

State & Federal Legal Exposure (Eric Schneiderman)

• Interest in how state-level prosecutions may serve as “belt and suspenders” in case of federal pardons, and how state Attorney General actions (e.g., investigation into campaign or inaugural funds) could add another layer of legal jeopardy.
• “Having state attorneys general pursuing claims within their jurisdiction… a belt and suspenders type of situation…” – Jennifer Taub [20:35]

Trump Organization Subpoenas and "Red Lines"

• News that Mueller may subpoena Trump Organization documents relating to Russia and Trump family businesses—which Trump publicly identified as a “red line.”
• Raises hypothetical scenarios about the consequences if Mueller were fired and what it would mean for the investigation and rule of law.
  [23:47–25:56]

Memorable Quotes

• “If you had to choose between life in a white collar federal prison or, I don’t know, polonium-210 or some crazy nerve agent, I don’t know. I think I'd choose the door on the left myself.” – Jennifer Taub on risk calculus for witnesses, referencing suspicious deaths of Russian figures [13:20]

Part 2: The Role, Responsibility, and Ethics of the President’s Lawyers

Guest: Bob Bauer
Starts ~29:35

Key Topics & Insights

What Does White House Counsel Actually Do?

• Institutional Role: Represents the executive office, not just the individual president.
• Must navigate tension between serving the president’s wishes and maintaining duty to the institution and public interest.
• Example: John Dean under Nixon expanded counsel’s role too far into the president’s political agenda, which overstepped appropriate boundaries.
  [29:35–32:55]

Distinguishing Between Lawyers’ Roles

• White House Counsel serves the government/institution, not the president personally.
• Michael Cohen (Trump’s personal lawyer) differs fundamentally from White House Counsel (Don McGahn), who answered to ethical and institutional obligations.

The President’s View of Legal Advisors

• “The President views the lawyers as he views every single other member of his staff, which is individuals who are supposed to deliver the goods…” – Bob Bauer [33:25]
• A president should receive independent legal advice, not just what he wants to hear. Trump's tendency is to expect “yes-men” and not accept limits.

Limits, Professional Ethics, and “Enablers”

• Even personal lawyers must maintain ethical standards and not simply do what the client wants.
• Key risk: Lawyers becoming "enablers," staying on and rationalizing their continued presence despite enabling misconduct.
• “At some point, a lawyer has to be very honest…am I, by hanging on, actually accomplishing something...or have I become an enabler?” – Bob Bauer [13:17]/[47:13]

The Influence of Character and Norms

• Absence of strong institutional norms around the White House Counsel’s role makes the president’s temperament crucial for upholding ethical conduct.
• D.C.'s professional/legal culture—rooted in ethical norms—can be vulnerable when outsiders lacking that background take key positions.

Mueller’s Role: Law and Character Assessment

• Prosecutors consider not just actions, but intent and character. Mueller will be forced to weigh Trump’s continually demonstrated disregard for legal norms and institutions during investigation.
• “It’s just hard to see how in a case where the president’s motives and intent are inevitably going to be presented, that this isn’t going to work very much against him…” – Bob Bauer [41:01]

The Rule of Law and Mueller's Legacy

• While Mueller must focus on law and facts, he also has a broader “backstop” role in upholding the rule of law at a critical moment for democracy.
• “Concern with this investigation and the legacy of this investigation, if you will, as a vindication of the rule of law, has to weigh somewhat in the way the special counsel’s team thinks about what their work is.” – Bob Bauer [44:07]

Memorable Moment

• The balancing act of institutional loyalty versus enabling criminality or misconduct, as illustrated by Watergate figures and today’s White House.
• “They cannot become their client’s enablers.” – Bob Bauer [47:13]

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “What did they owe and when did they owe it? Or really, what did they owe and to whom did they owe it?”
  — Jennifer Taub [00:05]/[15:48]

• “At some point, a lawyer has to be very honest with himself or herself and ask the question, am I, by hanging on, actually accomplishing something that is productive and consistent both with the interest of the institution and with my professional responsibility, or have I become an enabler?”
  — Bob Bauer [00:13]/[47:13]

• “There's no federal crime called collusion. There is a federal crime called conspiracy...”
  — Jennifer Taub [07:34]

• “The President views the lawyers as he views every single other member of his staff, which is individuals who are supposed to deliver the goods...”
  — Bob Bauer [33:25]

• “If you had to choose between life in a white collar federal prison or… some crazy nerve agent, I don't know. I think I'd choose the door on the left myself.”
  — Jennifer Taub [13:20]

Conclusion

This episode methodically disentangles complex legal developments in the Mueller investigation, zeroing in on the financial angles, the cascading legal exposure of Trump associates, and the crucial distinction between different types of lawyers servicing the president. It illustrates how legal principles, professional codes, and personal motivations intersect—and sometimes collide—in the highest echelons of American government, especially under a presidency skeptical of institutional restraints and rule of law.

For listeners who haven't caught the episode, this summary provides both a high-level roadmap and a granular look at the unique legal challenges and personalities at the heart of the Mueller probe and the Trump presidency.