Harry Litman [00:00:07] [MUSIC] Welcome back to Talking Feds, a prosecutor's roundtable that brings together your favorite former Department of Justice officials for a dynamic discussion of the most important legal topics of the day, including the investigations of President Trump and his circle.
Harry Litman [00:00:24] Today, the four page cryptic letter from Bill Barr to the Congress and the non-decision by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on potential obstruction of justice charges by President Trump. Finally we'll talk about what if anything is now left open to decide.
Harry Litman [00:00:44] I'm Harry Litman. I'm a former United States Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General and also an Assistant United States Attorney, or line prosecutor. Today I'm joined by Barbara McQuade, she's now a professor at the University of Michigan, but she was for eight years the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, [END MUSIC] and for many years before that, an Assistant U.S. Attorney. How long were you an AUSA for?
Barbara McQuade [00:01:11] Twelve years, Harry. And I find that experience to be more relevant even than the experience as U.S. Attorney, being a line prosecutor.
Harry Litman [00:01:17] And did you pretty much cycle through all the different divisions in the Eastern District, or were you focused on one in particular?
Barbara McQuade [00:01:26] Well, I started in our general crimes unit, doing a whole host of all kinds of miscellaneous cases. But I spent most of my time as an AUSA in the National Security Unit, focusing on those kinds of cases.
Harry Litman [00:01:36] With Barb and me is Mimi Rocah, who you've seen many times on MSNBC, as you have Barb. She's now a distinguished fellow in criminal justice at Pace Law School. Before then, you were also for many years an Assistant U.S. Attorney in a sleepy office on the East Coast. Where were you, and how long were you there?
Mimi Rocah [00:01:58] I was at this place called the Southern District of New York, you may or may not have heard of it. And I was there for a total of 16 and a half years, I got to oversee all different kinds of cases, from organized crime, narcotics, white collar, some national security, to gangs.
Harry Litman [00:02:15] In a episode soon to come of Talking Feds, by the way, we will sit down with several members of the Southern District of New York, including Mimi, to try to talk a little bit more about the special qualities and mystique of that office.
Harry Litman [00:02:29] OK. Well we are now in the wake of a very dramatic but also odd juncture in the Special Counsel probe, or perhaps, on the other side of the end of the Special Counsel probe. But Bill Barr has sent this letter to Congress detailing the supposed principal conclusions from the Mueller probe, and that's all that's been sent to date, a short letter laying out conclusions both on the so-called collusion side and also the obstruction of justice side. I'd like to zero in for now on the obstruction of justice side because as former AUSA's, I think we have something unusual on our hands. That's my first question. Bob Mueller, we're told by Attorney General Barr, did a painstaking investigation into obstruction of justice charges and simply decided not to reach a decision or a recommendation. When you heard that, Barb, how unusual did it strike you?
Barbara McQuade [00:03:36] It struck me as exceptionally unusual. I've never seen anything like that. All of us have been involved in cases that were very high profile, where we probably provided notice to a higher decisionmaker if we were an AUSA, certainly the U.S. Attorney. But even within Justice Department, if you had a very significant case you might provide notice to the Attorney General, but you would at least give a proposed recommendation. You wouldn't say, "Well here are all the facts, boss. I leave it for you to decide this case." You would make a proposal, you would say, "I recommend prosecution," or "I recommend declination, and these are the reasons." Even if you plan to defer to their ultimate decision, it, it struck me as very strange they asked him to make the ultimate decision there.
Harry Litman [00:04:20] OK. Mimi what are what are your thoughts about how unusual this is?
Mimi Rocah [00:04:25] So I agree with Barb that it does seem very unusual if we look at it in the context of normal prosecutions, let's call it, i.e. not where the president of the United States is the, or at least a, subject and maybe target. Mueller was trying to punt the decision to Congress. And at first I thought that was sort of not appropriate, I was surprised- I mean, I still am surprised by it, and I was a little bit upset about it. The more I thought about it, the more I think that, I understand that particularly if he found the question of obstruction of justice to be a close call, or even if he didn't, the fact that he knew that Trump couldn't be indicted on it because of the Office of Legal Counsel memo policy, that he thought the evidence should be laid out and in the hands of Congress.
Mimi Rocah [00:05:26] And in fact I believe that's what the independent counsel did in the case of Nixon. He didn't make a decision and he handed it to Congress, once it was unsealed by the judge. What happened here, and is really shocking, is that going back to the football analogy, Barr came in and he intercepted, or grabbed the football. And I'm not sure that's what Mueller intended. And that is what seems to me to be you know sort of the most inappropriate part of this.
Harry Litman [00:05:57] Now I want to go back to that in a second. I'll just add my two cents here about how unusual it is to say, unprecedented. I've never seen a case in which you, a the office working it wouldn't- not just have, but want to have a strong stake, they would in fact try to protect their own prerogative to make the decision, they're the ones who have the sweat equity. They've been up close to the evidence, they really, there's a reason that that they're in a better position, they've been investigating it, seen all the people in the grand jury, and there, they would be, just it would be part and parcel of their professional role to, if not make the decision, to at least weigh in and fight for it. So this straddling here and throwing up one's hands is really, really perplexing and coming from no less a professional than Robert Mueller makes it triply so. We'll understand it one day, but right now we we really don't.
Harry Litman [00:07:03] But I want to return to Mimi's point. So Mimi, you just said, I think you either assumed or surmised what was going on is Mueller decided under the circumstances it should be left to Congress. Now, all we know from the Barr letter is, well these were hard issues of law and fact. Barb, do you agree that that the likely reason Mueller decided to shrug his shoulders was the appropriateness of handing it off to the Congress, or do you think there's potential other reason? Why do we think Mueller would have done this?
Barbara McQuade [00:07:42] I don't know and that's why I think we are likely to see Congress asking or subpoenaing Robert Mueller and William Barr to come before them to answer these questions. I can't imagine that he's gone through this whole process of appointing a Special Counsel - and the purpose of the Special Counsel is to give the public assurance that there's some insulation for the decisionmaker from the chain of command and the executive branch, that you've got somebody there that, whose opinion you can trust. And the ultimate question, instead of deciding it himself, he hands it back to somebody who is in that executive branch chain of command. So it really seems inconsistent with the whole purpose of the Special Counsel laws. And so I think we are left to speculate that what he intended to do here was, as Mimi describes, a roadmap for Congress. He has demonstrated that he knows how to recommend a declination, because he did that with regard to conspiracy. And so, did he think that, "There is a pretty strong case here. If I could charge somebody, I would but I can't, so I'm going to hand this off to Congress for them decide what to do with it." That's a very logical assumption of what he was doing here. And I think the American people deserve to know the answer to that question of why did he punt on this question.
Harry Litman [00:08:55] Yeah I mean just to follow through, as you say, he knows what a declination is and it's just axiomatic for a prosecutor you try, you know, if you if you reach a point where you cannot say, then I think you decline. That's that's sort of how it goes. That's that's what the burden is. But to reach that point and pronounce yourself in equipoise and then let it go is again both baffling and unprecedented.
Harry Litman [00:09:22] I want to go back to you, Mimi, because you're suggesting with whatever sports analogy, eventually, that Barr kind of crossed him up, yes? I, I, we, we only recently learned - I mean all of this is extremely recent, but we now find out that Mueller was out of the process for the scripting of the Barr letter. He wasn't consulted on it. Is it, are you actually speculating, or is it your best guess, that in fact Mueller would have been surprised, or Mueller made a particular recommendation to leave it up to Congress and Barr sort of on his own motion just took it away and pronounced his own judgment? And if that's so- well, let me stop there, is that your, is that your best guess of what might have happened here?
Mimi Rocah [00:10:12] Essentially, yes. Based on what we know so far. And I mean I'm obviously open to hearing a different scenario. I have always said, as I think both of you, that when the end of the Mueller investigation comes, I will accept whatever Mueller has found and whatever conclusions he reaches. I still don't know what those are. And the same is true for this issue that we're discussing, if Mueller, we learn that actually this is what he intended, I mean, obviously. But I think there's a couple of hints as to why I am sort of going down this path. I mean one is, as we've all been saying, this is so unprecedented. Two is just what we know about Bob Mueller. I mean this is a person who for decades, both in you know military service and in public service, made hard decisions. This is what he took this mission on for. So I would find it surprising for him to say, "No I'm just going to leave it to the political branch after all of this," - meaning political appointees - "and I'm just not going to make the decision because it's hard." There must have been some other motive behind it, and other thinking.
Mimi Rocah [00:11:17] And the only other thinking that makes sense is, this is a decision that Congress needs to weigh, not people within the executive branch. And not even the Special Counsel. And lastly, I look at the Barr letter itself and it just has very strange language. I mean it's the sort of passive voice, you know, it doesn't say, "The Special Counsel made these findings, didn't decide, and asked us," and now, it didn't have to, but it it says basically because the Special Counsel did not make this decision, that leaves it to us to make this decision. And it's just kind of strangely written. So you know all of that at least suggests to me that this is a real possibility, that Mueller didn't know that Barr slash Rosenstein would you know make this judgment call in the way that they did.
Harry Litman [00:12:11] Yeah. And notice of course the whole scheme of the regulations, we are supposed to, if there's any instance in which the higher up doesn't follow what the Special Counsel wants to do, they're supposed to notify Congress. Now we are at the end of the probe, but that certainly suggests that if Mueller wanted to go a certain way, it would be both problematic and a matter to make sure Congress knew about, if the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General decided to go in a different direction. And what what about you, Barb, if you agree that Mueller was contemplating the decisions being left to Congress, so do you see Barr and Rosenstein going in as basically a usurping of Congress's role and a kind of rolling of Mueller at the at the very last minute?
Barbara McQuade [00:13:09] It's hard to imagine that it came out that way. You know I've heard reports that three weeks earlier, Robert Mueller told them that he would likely be recommending- or not reaching a conclusion. It's hard to imagine that they just surprised him with this and wrote this letter and announced it to the world, without giving him a heads up, and the same professional courtesy that he gave them. As a good soldier, perhaps he went along with it and said, "You know, you're the boss. It's your call.".
Barbara McQuade [00:13:42] What's interesting about this is we have this new Special Counsel regulation that's a little different from its predecessors, the independent counsel. And one of the criticisms of the independent counsel was some questioned its constitutionality because it created sort of a fourth branch of government. That was the famous dissent by Justice Scalia in the Morrison versus Olson case. But this was designed to become more of a part of the Department of Justice so that the Attorney General did have some oversight over the Special Counsel. But it leaves it I think in a very unsatisfying place, because it appears that Barr may have the power to do this. And as someone who has expressed an opinion of a strong view of executive power, he may have thought that he had not only the power but also the responsibility to do this. And so I think until we see both of them before Congress and ask them these questions, it's going to be hard to know what Mueller's motives were, whether he intended to leave this for Congress and what Barr's motives were. I mean, did he intend to make this decision all along? If that's the case, then we didn't need a Robert Mueller, we just needed a bunch of FBI agents reporting directly to William Barr.
Harry Litman [00:14:49] Yeah. OK. And of course, yes, there, we're talking about these two, but there is a third person involved here. And I think we should, we're short of time on this topic, but let's close it out with both whatever final thoughts you have, but also, in particular, what about Rod Rosenstein here? You can maybe point to, you can note of Bill Barr, he doesn't have prosecutorial experience. You can note of him, some would suggest may be more of a political attachment to either the party or the president. But he's joined here by Rod Rosenstein in this judgment, both on the merits, that there is no obstruction, and also just the decision to go ahead in the first place. We've, most of us know and have worked with Rod, how does that go into the calculus in your mind about what might have happened here? Starting with you, Mimi.
Mimi Rocah [00:15:43] Well I mean it gives me more pause. I mean in the sense that, pause the other way, pause about what I've been saying about this sort of being hijacked by Barr. I mean, I have had faith in Rod as a public servant, as someone who was trying to do whatever the law and the facts dictated, and not a political person you know somebody driven by politics here, as as I do view Barr. So the fact that he seems to have changed his mind and stayed on, assuming the reporting is correct, in order to be part of what Barr was doing here, is significant. But he didn't sign the letter, which you know he could have. He still has a position there - if he was really sort of part of this. So it's all just very puzzling. And I think you know, as Barb said at the beginning of all of this, the process here, it's not just that I think we need to see the Mueller report because of its substance, but also because we I think deserve to understand the process here, and how this came about.
Harry Litman [00:16:53] Barb, thoughts? Especially about Rod Rosenstein.
Barbara McQuade [00:16:57] Yeah. You know I know and worked with Rod and think very highly of him as a person of integrity and great professionalism. And throughout this investigation, I think he has handled himself very well appointing the Special Counsel, defending him throughout. But I have to say that it is, unless we learn more, at the moment I kind of feel like his legacy is a little bit tarnished and is bookended by two things. One, his memo recommending the firing of Jim Comey. And then the end here, where he was at least complicit with William Barr in taking this matter out of the hands of Congress or Robert Mueller, and making this decision themselves. And so I guess it leaves me wanting to know more to understand what was motivating Rod Rosenstein to think that that was the right thing to do.
Harry Litman [00:17:45] Yeah. Well it certainly does illustrate, the Deputy Attorney General job is one of the very toughest in government. I, look, I have been more than others from having worked with him, respectful of the Attorney General Barr, but I certainly join both of you in seeing that something doesn't add up, maybe even has a bad odor to it, and there's an absolute urgency for us to find out the truth. Until then, this notion that things are sort of closed seems just false. We don't know, all we have is a declaration and not what we need in the law, you know reasoning and facts. OK. That's all we have time for on this topic, though it's going to be playing out intensely over the next few weeks.
Harry Litman [00:18:35] [MUSIC] Now it's time for the feature on Talking Feds that we call Sidebar, in which we give you some basic information about a really important concept in federal prosecutorial practice. And we do so with the help of an interesting, sometimes even famous, person from another field. Today we are really fortunate to have the artist Laurie Anderson, who's going to provide information about the relationship between U.S. Attorneys in offices around the country and the power, bureaucracy or structure at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C.
Laurie Anderson [00:19:23] What is the relationship between U.S. Attorneys and Main Justice? The Department of Justice, headed by the Attorney General, is responsible for law enforcement and policy in this country. The DOJ includes several divisions that litigate criminal and civil matters and determine legal policy. These divisions are sometimes informally referred to as Main Justice, after the DOJ headquarters building in Washington D.C.
Laurie Anderson [00:19:53] The U.S. Attorneys are the chief lawyers for the U.S. government in each federal jurisdiction. But their work is overseen by the Attorney General of the United States, and they are expected to follow all of Main Justice's policies. A given case may be prosecuted by attorneys from Main Justice, a U.S. Attorney's Office, or both working together. But no matter who is litigating a case, the rules and procedures established by Main Justice govern. The Southern District of New York, or SDNY, has historically been given considerable leeway in determining which matters to focus on and what steps to take in a given case. Because of its independent streak, the SDNY is sometimes affectionately referred to as the Sovereign District of New York. [END MUSIC]
Harry Litman [00:20:49] Thank you very much to Laurie Anderson. It's now time to move to our second topic. For our second topic, it's related to the first but a more sort of bottom line where we stand. In the wake of the Barr letter, what is really left open? What is in fact now not going to be revisited? Who can breathe a big sigh of relief, and who on the other hand should not be exhaling too prematurely? Where do things go now in terms of investigation, especially by other prosecutors' offices? Mimi, any thoughts about that?
Mimi Rocah [00:21:32] Yeah, I mean, look I think the thing that is sort of most off the table, the thing that certain people who probably had good reason to be worried before can now breathe that sigh of relief, is being charged with some kind of conspiracy to interfere in the election by coordinating, conspiring with people from the Russian government. I mean that that is clearly off the table. So to the extent that people thought that Don Junior, Kushner, obviously Donald Trump and others might have been charged with that, based on the Trump Tower meeting and other things, that seems to be off the table. That is something that, according to Barr's letter, Mueller took off the table. Now again, I would like to see that in Mueller's words, not Barr's, but I accept that.
Mimi Rocah [00:22:24] And that isn't totally surprising because I think a lot of the, you know we've spent a lot of time talking about a lot of the conduct that sort of went into that, what we were all talking about as possibly being you know in the awful but not unlawful category. And it may be that a lot of the information that Mueller gathered goes more into this sort of counter-intelligence realm as opposed to the criminal realm. So I think that's a big piece that we still have to see. In terms of other possible criminal charges though, I mean the most obvious one is the spin-offs I think regarding, that would have come from Michael Cohen, regarding obviously the campaign finance scheme in the Southern District of New York, but also things regarding the Inauguration Committee and other possible just financial crimes that relating to the Trump Organization and the Trump charity, all things that sort of Michael Cohen could be helpful on. And then you know we've heard a lot of reporting and we I think don't have quite as much information in terms of dealings with people like Jared Kushner and other countries, not Russia, but Saudi Arabia, for example. And you know I don't know where that stands, but it seems like that is something that likely has been wheeled out to another component of the Department of Justice.
Harry Litman [00:23:46] Maybe DNI. What, but what now what about though, not conspiracy with the election persay, but obstruction spinning out of it? Do we take Donald Trump Junior to be free and clear, not simply of collusion charges, but of any obstruction-related charges? For example, the formulation of the false story about the Trump Tower-Russia meeting. It seemed like he was in the crosshairs for some of that conduct. Is that, do we assume all a dead letter now, anything having to do with obstruction, even not including the President?
Barbara McQuade [00:24:26] I think so. Technically, not necessarily. We've seen Robert Mueller take a pretty narrow view of his mission focusing on Trump and Russia, conspiracy, matters arising from that investigation, and then obstruction occurring within it. By not finding conspiracy and leaving the question open as to President Trump with obstruction, it seems to me that obstruction with Don Junior would be all rolled up into that. But it is possible that he has handed that off to others, as he handed off the Michael Cohen case for example, the Maria Butina case, some of these other cases that go to the heart of the case. So it is possible. I see it more likely, if there are to be charges against Donald Trump Junior, to come out of the Southern District of New York's investigation relating to campaign finance violations, and that's one to watch.
Barbara McQuade [00:25:14] I think there's actually a couple of things to watch in the coming days. One is the Michael Cohen campaign finance violation. Just a week ago, the judge in that case ruled that all the search warrants had to be unsealed except for 18 pages relating specifically to that investigation, saying that to disclose it now would reveal the scope of the investigation and subjects of the investigation. So that means that investigation is very active, and that the judge anticipates some activity within 60 days. It's a limited universe of people who were involved in that schemem that of course was the payment of hush money to Michael Cohen, checks written by Donald Trump himself and Donald Trump Junior, that were purported to be a retainer but were in fact to repay Michael Cohen for the payments that he made. So I think that's one to watch.
Barbara McQuade [00:26:05] And I think the other one to watch is this investigation the Southern District of New York has into the Trump Inaugural Committee. They have subpoenaed documents for crimes ranging from wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, campaign finance violations. And don't forget they still have Rick Gates out there who is cooperating. He was the deputy chairman of the Inaugural Committee, pleaded guilty. And he also, within that same timeframe, had an extension on his sentencing date of 60 days, to allow him to complete his cooperation. And so I'm sure they're asking him questions about what was happening to that Inaugural Committee. And in fact there's been public reporting that some donors were asked to directly pay vendors, which sounds a little suspicious and funky. So, those are two areas where I think we might see some additional charges coming within the next couple of months.
Harry Litman [00:26:52] By the way, speaking of search warrants, so we learned in the Barr letter that the probe involved no fewer than five hundred search warrants. I've never been involved in a case, I wouldn't say, with half that many. I don't know if you have, but that sort of blew me away. And those are going to be, and they should be, able to be revealed. I mean there's a lot of material now that we could move to immediately that it would be somewhat urgent to see, for instance, just Mueller's straight out analysis. But the way it has been, the process has now been organized by Barr and the Department, they're going to go through this painstaking rule six grand jury analysis - which, for our listeners, means trying to determine if any of the material from the grand jury can now be revealed - that's going to take a while and could even lead to some court battles. And during that time, we are presumably not getting things that we could get and we really, really do need to see. Mimi, what do you think about what happens now to Roger Stone?
Mimi Rocah [00:28:00] Look, I mean he's charged. I don't think it should change anything with respect to his case. I mean he may have some motions that he's going to try and make, trying to use what Barr has said about, Mueller's findings about no conspiracy with the Russians, no obstruction. I mean I don't really see those going anywhere as a legal matter in terms of Stone's obstruction case. That case seemed pretty solid based on what we knew laid out in the indictment.
Mimi Rocah [00:28:32] You know one thing about Don Junior and resting easily and all this, I mean Barb did a nice job laying out sort of different possible investigations. Just going back for a minute to the Mueller investigation, then sort of how this ties together, while we can talk about how, why Trump wasn't interviewed and how complicated that would have been, I still don't understand why Donald Trump Junior wasn't interviewed, at least as a witness. I mean he was at the Trump Tower meeting. He was part of the cover up story related to that. So I find that surprising. And part of, you know, one theory had always been that he wasn't interviewed because he was a target. And as your listeners may know, you can't subpoena a target to interview. So if he just declined to, he would. But if he's a target, what's he to target of, what investigation? Or why else wasn't he interviewed? That, that's still a very open question to me.
Harry Litman [00:29:29] Yeah, I really agree. And that had been my assumption - of course, a target is someone whom the prosecutors formed some anticipation or expectation of indicting, and so if that was the reason, what happened that whatever cards they were anticipating going forward on just sort of ebbed away? I mean, I certainly didn't expect, when everyone was saying the probe will be done tomorrow, that's one of the things that that led me to doubt it because it seemed like there had to be some accounting for for him and his role, and just as you say, his not having been interviewed.
Harry Litman [00:30:04] Barb, from your national security experience, you're probably the best positioned of the three of us to speak to this the counterintelligence aspect of that. How, if at all - and I mean this is a very big part of Mueller's charge, even leaving aside the conspiracy with Russia in the campaign, the worry or the investigation of whether Trump is somehow compromised or otherwise inappropriately positioned vis a viz Russia. Whatever evidence Mueller developed there, how, if at all, will either Congress or the American people learn about it?
Barbara McQuade [00:30:38] Well it's quite possible that the American people may not learn about what he learned from a counterintelligence perspective, because some of that material might be classified. It might be that sources or methods cannot be compromised. But we do have some accountability there in terms of the Intelligence Committees in both the House and the Senate. That was part of the the FISA compromise, that we were going to have more oversight over the executive's use of intelligence collection, in exchange for that power to collect intelligence, we get some oversight from Congress and we get the FISA Court.
Barbara McQuade [00:31:10] And so I think that the intelligence committees are entitled to a briefing on what he learned. It may be the case that some of what he learned is shared with the public, but a big part of a counterintelligence investigation is really just to learn what our adversaries are up to so that we can defeat them. Sometimes the best way to defeat them is through criminal prosecution. But that's not the only way, and it's often not the best way. Sometimes it is allow them to keep doing what they're doing and just watch them. Sometimes the best strategy is to feed them false information so that they go off in the wrong direction. But learning about their capabilities so that they can be neutralized is the ultimate goal of a counterintelligence investigation. And so I hope that at the very least Robert Mueller has learned how Russia went about trying to interfere with our election. He did reveal in those two indictments, the troll farm indictment that talked about the social media campaign, and then the hacking indictment that talked about the hacking, stealing, and staged release of emails, will help give insights to those seeking to protect our elections in the future.
Harry Litman [00:32:14] OK. That's all we have time for, we're going to end this episode, like all episodes of Talking Feds, with a listener question that we, the feds, have to answer in five words or fewer- fewer, as my children have reminded me. And today's question comes from a listener, Penny, in Michigan who asks, "Can Trump pardon himself?" Mimi, you want to take a go at this first? Five words or fewer.
Mimi Rocah [00:32:45] He shouldn't be able to.
Harry Litman [00:32:48] Barb?
Barbara McQuade [00:32:50] No, but he will try.
Harry Litman [00:32:54] [Laughter] That's better than I had. Probably not.
Harry Litman [00:32:59] [MUSIC] OK. Thank you very much, Mimi Rocah, Barb McQuade. And stay tuned. We're in a pretty dramatic patch here in the wake of the Barr letter with a lot of important things that we're waiting to learn and just don't know.
Harry Litman [00:33:13] If you liked what you heard, please subscribe to us on iTunes, Spotify and Stitcher. You can follow us on Twitter @TalkingFedsPod to find out about future episodes and other Feds-related content, and you can also check us out on the web at TalkingFedsdotcom. And don't forget to submit any questions to Questions at TalkingFedsdotcom, whether it's for five words or less or general questions about the inner workings of the legal system for our Sidebar segment. Thanks for tuning in. And don't worry, as long as you need answers the Feds will keep talking.
Harry Litman [00:33:53] Talking Feds is produced by [00:33:55] Infinite Gain Productions, Dave Moldovan and Rebecca Jackson. Production assistance by Sarah Philipoom. Writing and research by David Lieberman, [9.6s] and the incredible Philip Glass graciously let us use his music. Special thanks to artist Laurie Anderson for today's Sidebar. Talking Feds as a production of Dalito LLC. I'm Harry Litman. See you next time. [END MUSIC]