October 28, 2025 • 34 mins
When Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on the investigation into Russian election interference finally landed, many key passages were redacted from public view. So reporter Jason Leopold and First Amendment lawyer Matt Topic began a running battle with government lawyers to reveal the rest. Featuring government documents read by comedian Kyle Kinane.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
My expertise is getting secrets from the government, and damn it,
I was going to get those Muller records first.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
That's investigative journalist Jason Leopold. These days, he's reporting for
Bloomberg News. But on Saturday, November two, twenty nineteen, Jason
and his team were waiting impatiently for documents from Robert
Muller's investigation into Russian interference in the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
It was the first tranne from thousands of pages of
interview summaries that the FBI had tried to keep secret,
but we managed to pry them loose.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Jason was certain there'd be important information in these pages
and he couldn't wait to break whatever news they contained.
You see, CNN was also getting these records. The issue
was that Jason's copy was supposed to be mailed to Chicago.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Meanwhile, CNN is in Washington, DC and the records office
is in Virginia, so they're going to get it first.
And I was like, there's no way I will accept this.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
So after some hounding, the government agreed to reroute the
package in get it to Jason's team as quickly as possible,
and then on this Saturday. In twenty nineteen, the race
against time began when Jason's colleague in DC received a
package with.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
A CD inside a CD like it was nineteen ninety nine, which,
by the way, is how they still do it to
this day.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
But with the records firmly in hand, the gravity of
the situation set in.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
It was like, holy, we just got the first release
from the Mauler investigation and immediately just went crazy and
saying that like, all right, we have this. We don't
know if CNN has it, but we have an advantage.
It's Saturday. We're willing to work on a Saturday.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
It didn't take long for Jason and his colleagues to
find something that public deserve to know.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
There was this conspiracy floating around as it related to
the Democratic National Committee and the hack of their emails.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike. He
was referring to a cybersecurity firm at the center of
a conspiracy theory that suggests you the Crane not rush Up,
was behind the DNC server hack in the twenty sixteen elections.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
And so these records revealed that it was actually Paul
Maniford who was pushing and floating.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
That conspiracy theory. It was such a big deal at
the time, you know.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
So we got the first story up just honestly, within
an hour, and then just kept filling it out.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Sure enough, Jason and the team beat CNN by ours man.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Everyone there was just so excited, and that evening it
was MSNBC that had a segment on it, joining us
now senior investigative reporter BuzzFeed News, Jason Leopold. The documents
provide a window into what was taking place behind the scenes,
and it allows the public to see what the FBI
memorialize firsthand.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
And boy was there a lot more, so much more.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
Than we can fit into this episode. But the thing is.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
We wouldn't know any of it, not one bit, if
not for a little thing called the Freedom of Information
Act the FOIA.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
It's something Jason and I know very well because we
both thought to get these documents released, which is what
we do together every.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Day, and that's what we're here to talk about. Cue
the music. I'm investigative journalist Jason Leopold. I spend most
of my days getting documents from the government.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
I'm attorney Matt Topic, and I fight them in court
to open their files when they don't want to.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
From Bloomberg and no smiling. This is Disclosure, a podcast
about crying loose government secrets, the Freedom of Information Act,
and the unexpected places that takes us.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
I mean, I'll just say it, Matt.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
I never thought that the Russia investigation and the Mueller
investigation that looked into Trump would have such a long life.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
We're seeing that in the news all over again.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Yeah, enormous news. The Trump Justice Department has now indicted
former FBI director James Comy Jim Comy, charged with lying
to Congress.
Speaker 5 (03:55):
Just days after the president publicly pressured Attorney General Pam
Bondi to pursue case against his opponents, including Comy by name.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
The indictment is tied to Comy's twenty twenty testimony in
front of Congress about Russian meddling in the twenty sixteen
presidential election.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
In about what three days before the Statute of Limitations
was going to explare.
Speaker 6 (04:13):
My family and I have known for years that there
are costs to standing up to Donald Trump. But I
have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I'm innocent,
So let's have a trial.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
It's funny because anytime there's something that is related to
a hot button issue, I immediately think back to did
I file a Foyer request for anything related to that
person or anything that they did. And when the news
broke about Comy being indicted, I immediately thought back to a
request that I filed in twenty eighteen. So back in
(04:46):
twenty eighteen, Trump said during an interview with the Daily
Caller that he had one hundred pictures of James Comy
and Robert Muller hugging and kissing each other. When he
said that that was a Foya opportunity. So I filled
a Foy request with the FBI and said, I would
(05:07):
like to have pictures of James Comy and Robert Muller hugging,
kissing each other.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
Oh, that's just so good.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
And the FBI responded by saying they couldn't locate any
photographs of Komy and Muller hugging and kissing.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
So I wrote a little story about it and tweeted
that app Matt, can you read what I tweeted?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
I would be honored. Jacob Foya update, the FBI has
not been able to locate any photographs of James Comy
and Robert Muller hugging and kissing parentheses. Trump City had
one hundred. My favorite part is you got a response
from Komy that says, my wife was so relieved, crying
laughing emoji.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
But Matt, as far as that recent indictment from this
year is concerned, I'm not going to get into whether
Kobe should or shouldn't have been charged, but the history
leading up to it is worth discussing. One of the
reasons why the effects of the Russian investigation are still
being felt now is because at the time, it was
(06:10):
an investigation that just dominated Trump's entire presidency, and Trump
was outraged that he was under federal investigation, which is
why it also became such a big bite for us
to get all those records that might never have seen
the light of day. So we're talking about something that
(06:32):
dates back to twenty sixteen when Comy was still in
charge of the FBI, right where the FBI was secretly
at work on an investigation called Crossfire Hurricane, and that
name was chosen as a homage to the Rolling Stones.
What's the song I forgot anyway, We'll figure it out.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
It's jumping Jack Flesh.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Jason Poser, Matt stop. Don't listen to him. I mean,
he's right, but don't listen to him.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Yeah, I am right.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
So the investigation was to essentially look into Trump's ties
to Russia's campaigns ties to Russia. It was opened after
if anyone recalls Trump saying Russia, if you're listening, I
hope you're able to find the thirty thousand emails that
are missing. The investigation also centered around the sources of
(07:26):
information that we're coming into the FBI, including what we
know now or very suspect sources that were essentially saying
Trump has these ties to Russia, campaign has these ties
to Russia. There's these communications that are taking place with
people at the Kremlin. FBI opens up this investigation. Trump
gets elected president, and immediately after he's elected, multiple congressional
(07:48):
committees start these Russia related investigations. There was lots of
leaks taking place that kind of forced the Attorney General
at the time Justice Department, Jeff Sessions, to ultimately recuse himself.
Speaker 7 (08:05):
My staff recommended recuse them.
Speaker 8 (08:07):
They said that since I had involvement with the campaign,
I should not be involved in any campaign investigation.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
And then Collby is fired from the FBI by Trump
in May twenty seventeen, which Kobe ultimately claimed was related
to his handling of the Russia investigation.
Speaker 6 (08:24):
I take the President's words. I know I was fired
because of something about the way I was conducting the
Russian investigation was in some way putting pressure on him,
in some way irritating him, and he decided to fire
me because of that.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
So, with Sessions recusing himself, this led to Robert Muller,
former director of the FBI, being appointed as special counsel,
you know, to make sure any investigation was independent.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
So really the person we have to thank is mister
magoo aka Jeff Sessions. I keep handy for these occasions.
The Wikipedia page for a list of nicknames used by
Donald Trump, I had to look it up at The
nickname for Jeff Session was mister McGoo.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
By the way, no nickname for Robber Maler on the list.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Surprisingly, fast forward to March twenty nineteen, we heard that
the Mala report was going to be submitted any day
to Bill Barr, the Attorney General at the time, who
told a Senate committee months earlier that the public deserved
to know what the results of the investigation were.
Speaker 7 (09:21):
My goal will be to provide as much transparency as
I can consistent with the law, and I will not
let personal, political, or other improper interests influence my decision.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I wanted to put that to the test, so I
called Matt, my attorney, also known as the Foya King
of Chicago, as his coffee mug says, Matt and his
team have gotten the government to release documents hundreds of times,
like when he forced the release of the Lakwan McDonald
dashcam footage.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
Mayor Manuel and the prosecutor battle for months to keep
the dash cam video under wraps. They lose when a
judge orders the release of.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
The video, and he helps me pry things lose from
the government, regardless of which party.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
Is in power.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
So the plan was that Jason would submit a FOYA
or Freedom of Information Act request for the report. And
let me just explain a little bit. You're going to
hear an awful lot about FOYA. So, FOYA is a
statute that says the public is entitled to government records since.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
It's a government of the people and for the people, right.
And this law says that the work of all these
government agencies, they're emails, notes, meeting man, it's all that stuff.
It should be available to the public if a member
of the public asks.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Except in certain circumstances where there's something like personal privacy
or an ongoing investigation, or national security or a long
list of things where the government can keep information secret
from you. But when they do that, you have a
right to go to court to challenge that. And Jason
and I have done that countless times in order to
get access to all kinds of records. But the first
step in using the FOYA is always the same. Make
(10:57):
a request, right.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Just request the docum from the government agency that would
have them. I do these requests as a journalists all
the time. It's my thing, but really anybody can do this,
and the law says that the government has to respond
within certain.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Timelines in the request either has to be denied, or,
as happens all the time, the agency just blows you
off and doesn't actually comply with their legal obligations. So
once that happens, then you can go to court to
challenge it.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Yeah, and I wanted to use this process to get
my hands on the Muller Report as quickly as possible.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
So he makes the request and then like the next thing,
that happens publicly is that Bill Barr sends his letter
to Congress with the quote principal conclusions.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
So what's out in the public is not the Muller
report itself. At this point, we couldn't see Mueller's take,
just the summary from bar.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
They wanted to get their version of what the report
said out in the world and have it get some
traction before they release the report. Yes, yes, and this
is like, this drives me nuts. I'm sure it drove
Jason nuts. It drove a lot of people nuts. That
to me is like FOYA is screaming like, let me in,
let me in. This is my job. Now they're saying
(12:10):
one thing. You want to know what it really says.
Then you got to get the documents.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
And for just a second, it looks like we might
get a FOYA compliant version of the report quickly because
the DOJ granted expedited processing to my request. Well, except
that they almost immediately tell us that it'll take them
even longer to process the report under the Freedom of
Information Act because it fell within quote unusual circumstances. So
(12:39):
we sue the government to get that report. Oh and
while this is all going on, something a little weird happens.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
So about a month after Bill Barr released his initial
summary of Mueller's findings, they finally released the first version
of the mull report itself, but it wasn't actually processed
and redacted. According to the FOYA stachues, it was FOYA esque,
so they were deact to things like grain jury stuff
and like harm to ongoing investigations, or they just use
(13:06):
their own kind of shorthand for it instead of the
actual FOYA statute.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Harm to ongoing matter, sorry andthrow matter.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Yeah, right right, that's the right, right. So we got
into court and we're immediately like they got to release
the FOYA version like now, like next week, two days,
like really really fast. They shouldn't need that much time.
They've already been through the report. They're already telling everybody
what the report says. Like they need to release a
FOYA compliant version of this report like as soon as possible,
(13:33):
because every day that goes by is another day in
which there's a story out there and we don't really know.
Speaker 8 (13:37):
If that's what the report says or not, which it's
important to note, is creating an environment that the judge said,
quote I think is going to cause a significant portion
of the American public to be concerned about whether there
is transparency.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
So we're basically putting the title of the metal, trying
to make this lawsuit go as fast as we can
get the judge to go, and he was willing to
go pretty fast. So they get a deadline by which
they have to properly review and reject the report.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Then our Foyer redacted report comes out May sixth, twenty nineteen.
But all the redactions were largely the same. The big
difference is that instead of the weird shorthand, they were
now citing Freedom of Information Act exemptions to justify what
they would keep secret.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
But this stuff was really important because that's how we
make sure the government is complying with the law.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Yes, exactly, Matt Accountability. Plus, now that we knew how
they were trying to justify the redactions, we could challenge
those in court, which we did and.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
You'll hear all about that after the break.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Before the break, we had just gotten our hands on
a Foyer process copy of the Mola report where the
government has said, here's what we want to keep secret,
and here are the exemptions that let us do that.
So now it's time to go back to court where
we say, oh, you want to keep that a secret
because you think the Freedom of Information Act allows you to, okay,
prove it.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Yeah, because that's what FOYA is like. Stuff gets withheld,
stuff gets rejected. But the law says that the government
has to prove in court, if challenged, that everything that
they withheld, that there's a basis in the statute to
do that, and they have to prove that with some
level of evidence, and they have to show how the
exemptions actually apply.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Yeah, we really wanted to challenge a lot of the
redactions that were hiding the reasons why Muller concluded that
some people Donald Trump Junior being a big one here,
wouldn't be charged with crimes even though some of their
conduct was already publicly detailed.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
Okay, so let me explain a little bit more about
how this works. Normally, the government just explains everything they withheld,
and they put it in these declarations to describe what
they withheld and explain why it's exempt like it rises
and falls with that. But sometimes the court will actually
say no, I want to look at it, especially if
there's kind of reasons to be concerned about whether the
(16:04):
government is really being straight about it.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Yeah, we really weren't sure what the judge in our
case was going to do at this point.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
And so the next big thing that happened in the
case is March fifth, twenty twenty, which is like just
before the world shuts down for COVID. I remember, I'm
in New Orleans for the Nikar Conference, which is a
conference of like mostly data journalists and alta foya stuff.
So I'm there when we get this decision, and the judge,
(16:31):
who's a Bush appointee just like demolishes Bill Barr and says,
I'm going to read this report myself because of this
super shady way that the Justice Department went about first
releasing like their summary and other things. And then there
were disputes between Mueller's team and the Attorney General Bill
Barr about whether Bill Barr was mischaracterizing things like that
(16:54):
whole ball of X turned into the judge saying this
is all fishy. He writes a very scathing opinion.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Yeah, we have a couple of excerpts here from it,
and we've asked comedian Kyle Kanane to read it.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
All right, give it a shot.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
The inconsistencies between Attorney General Bar's statements, made at the
time when the public did not have access to the
redacted version of the Mullor Report, caused the court to
seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt
to influence public disclosure about the Mullor Report in favor
of President Trump.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
He's calling into question the credibility of the sitting Attorney
General of the United States. Like that's a big deal.
Bear in mind, this is Bill Barr, So this is
Trump version one. This is when like most of the
cabinet people, you know, most of the people in positions
of power, they are people with like long Republican pedigrees.
(17:46):
And I remember calling Jason and we were both like,
oh my god, Oh my god, did you see that part?
Can you believe what he just said? And you know,
it was, oh man, it was unbelievable. But what that
meant was that the DJ had to send over a
secret package to the court. Then, after looking over everything
for a few months, the judge granted summary judgment on
September thirtieth, twenty twenty, which mostly upheld the redactions and
(18:12):
effectively ended our case at the district court level. So
with that lost stinging a little.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
We looked ahead to the appeals process because there were
things that we felt like we had a.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
Good shot at challenging on appeal.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
And in particular, we really wanted to better understand why
certain people weren't charged with any crimes even though they're
mentioned in the report and there's information about him in
the report, there wasn't an explanation about why, for example,
Donald Trump Junior wasn't charged with any crimes despite things
that were found in the investigation. So we kind of
zeroed in on what we wanted to do next, and
(18:43):
that's what we were focusing on when we looked ahead
to an appeal. And a reason that that was really
important was because there was this constant drum beat out
of Trump World that this was an illegal political witch hunt,
and we thought that a real good way to get
to the bottom of that, whether that is true or
not true, was to take a close look at how
(19:04):
they handled Donald Trump Junior, which would tend to show
you if this was an illegal political witch hunt, then
you would think that they went out of their way
to investigate Don Jior when there was no basis to
do so. But conversely, if they had the goods on
Don Junior and they didn't charge him. That would suggest
it's the opposite of a political witch hunt.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
And there's a huge public interest in knowing did Mueller
do a good job or not.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
And so we took that up to the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals and we argued over that like pretty
narrow issue, which we.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
Actually have tape of the government.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Is withholding not only the names of Trump campaign officials
who were investigated and not charged, but also the justification
for those decisions. Oral arguments are really fun, but the
most rewarding thing is when the other lawyers arguing and
the judges are taking the stuff that you wrote in
your brief and they're using that material to pound your
opponent into the ground. And that's exactly what happened. They
(20:01):
completely understood our theory of how to look at all this.
Speaker 9 (20:04):
The public's need for understanding is really high. Here the
president is saying it's a scam, and.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
They just rampaged on this government lawyer who was evading
their questions and just trying to like make the thing
go away.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
A clear evid insury showing is required to establish government
misconduct for purposes are not.
Speaker 9 (20:21):
Talking about misconductor. This rationale it says the public is
entitled to understand.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
And it didn't go away.
Speaker 9 (20:30):
The individual has been identified, The facts with respect of
that individual are in.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
The public record. They just they really beat them up.
Speaker 9 (20:37):
The only thing that's missing that you've redacted is the
explanation for why the government took the position it took
in the report.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
And the outcome was because of our lawsuit, the public
got to know why Muller didn't charge Donald Trump Junior
with any crabs because what got unredacted was the portions
that said we looked at Donald Trump Junior for sort
of computer hacking type of crimes.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Let's turn again to our friend Kyle Kanaane for the
exact wording from the report.
Speaker 5 (21:05):
The office considered whether Donald Trump Junior intentionally accessed a
protected computer without authorization in violation of Title eighteen, United
States Code, Section ten thirty, subsection eight, paragraph two, sub
paragraph C.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
At subsection C, paragraph two, sub.
Speaker 5 (21:18):
Paragraph you get the point providing penalties for quote whoever
intentionally access as a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized
access and thereby obtains information from any protected computer.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
All right, mac continue.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
So they believed that they had sufficient evidence to charge
him with a misdemeanor, but they decided in an exercise
of discretion that they weren't going to charge him, and
they decided not to charge him with the felony version
because they didn't know definitively that they could prove that
the value of that information exceeded I think it was
(21:57):
a five thousand dollars threshold in order to argid as
a felony.
Speaker 4 (22:02):
So what's your read on it?
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Then it showed me, and this is just my opinion
that Mueller handled Trump World with kid gloves in the
course of this investigation and didn't go at them as
hard as I think prosecutors often do in other cases.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
But you know, I do think it's worth noting that
these things we were able to probably lose from the government.
Those reactions were originally agreed upon by Robert Muller's team
and Bill Barr's team, So this wasn't just Bill barrside
trying to keep things secret.
Speaker 4 (22:32):
This was also mullerside trying to keep things secret.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
What's your takeaway there, Matt, These are institutionalists who are
primarily concerned with preserving the reputation and integrity of the
institutions that they're working for, which is a different question
from like serving the broader public interest of the United
States of America. And that is why we have a
FOYA statute, because we know that that's what government officials
(23:00):
are very often going to do. In fact, a lot
of times they can't help themselves. I don't even know
that I would be any better if I was in
those shoes. But that's why we have to have a
law that drags these documents out of them, because they
don't want to be scrutinized. So the conclusion I would
draw is that Muller didn't want to be scrutinized about
why he didn't charge Donald Trump Junior, which means there's
(23:23):
a good chance that's why it's actually been redacted. It's
something they just don't want us to know because they
don't want us to be able to scrutinize them and
question their work and hold them accountable. But that is
something that we as Americans deserve to know and have
a right to know. So this is a perfect example
of like what FOYA does, why it's important, and what
(23:44):
it can get you.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
These cases were to me the best example of how
powerful FOYA is and keeping the public informed about what
their government is up to and alerting the public to
what was taking place behind the scenes, which was capped
off by literally unredacting that section of the Mulla Report
(24:05):
and seeing Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
Junior's name there.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
I mean, that was incredible, but I will say not
as incredible as it could have been, which you'll hear
all about after the break. So on the other side
of the break you heard about some of the big
wins and big news that came out of our attempts
to get the Mullo Report unredacted. All in all, we
ended up filing five different lawsuits for information from the
(24:30):
Muller investigation. But God, Matt, do you remember the time
we thought we might just get every single thing we
could have ever wanted from the Maller investigation, and then
some mark meadows this was awesome. Here's what I remember.
I remember that Trump tweeted.
Speaker 5 (24:48):
I have fully authorized the total declassification of any and
all documents pertaining to the single greatest political crime in
American history, the Russia hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton emails scandal,
no reactions exclamation point October sixth, twenty twenty.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
So I read that and immediately reached for my phone
to call Matt, and I said, Matt, we have to
file an emergency motion in court, and like, I mean,
I know what an emergency emotion is, but the fact
that that was that immediately popped into my head.
Speaker 4 (25:21):
I was like, we got to do this. Did you
see what Trump tweeted? This relates to everything.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
That we are asking for because we are still battling
the government in terms of trying to get some of
these records released.
Speaker 4 (25:31):
Matt, do you recall that phone call in your response?
Speaker 2 (25:34):
I mean, I got really excited because I thought it
was a great idea. There's all these records that are
being with Hell's remos based on them being classified or
for other exemption claims, and here the president, who has
the authority to declassified documents, is saying that not only
are these declassified, he's saying he has already ordered them declassed.
It was like a cry for help, and it was
(25:57):
like we were going to help him, Like this is
what he he wants all this stuff declassified and released,
and the quote unquote deep State won't do it. Well,
Like we'll help, right, Like we can help make that happen.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
I'm not even sure if it was a strategy at
that point.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
It was honestly wanted to get you know, I certainly
just wanted to get these records, but I was also thinking,
what could the response by the government ultimately be to this.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yeah, because even if you don't get records, you can
learn a lot from the response itself. They'll give you
declarations and descriptions of records that lets you understand things
like what's the volume of communication on this issue, who's involved,
when were they involved? And sometimes those things are newsworthy
even if you can't get all the details. So it
(26:44):
was exciting and look like it was going to be
great for the public, but also a lot of fun
to make the government answer for this and say, the
president is saying these are declassified and you're not releasing them,
like explain yourself. And in terms of timing, we're like
a month before the twenty twenty election. Russia hoax kind
of language is all over the campaign. This is a
(27:05):
huge campaign issue, and like we maybe have the opportunity
to just blow open like a whole bunch of additional
documents right before the election, because the president says that
he wants them all released.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
So follow this emergency motion and what's the process, Matt,
you know, and an emergency motion? Right, so so because
that's what those are the words I use.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
That was that right? Was it right? An emergency motion?
Speaker 2 (27:30):
Yeah, you called it the right thing. That tweet was
October sixth, and by October eighth, we file what's called
emergency motion of plaintiffs for court order requiring defendants to
reprocess the Muller Report before the November third, twenty twenty
presidential election in light of the president's recent declassification in weiver.
And then we spend just like two pages explaining what
(27:54):
the case is about, in reminding the court that it
had repeatedly recognized the importance of these records to the
November twenty twenty election. And then we laid out the tweets,
and we said, this should be pretty simple. It doesn't
require any analysis, it doesn't require any consultation with anybody else.
The President said to release this, he has the authority
(28:15):
to release it. So order them to reprocess it, you know,
we have to like sort of confer with the government,
and they indicated, not surprisingly, that they would oppose and
that they didn't read the tweet the.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Way we read the tweet.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
But we filed the motion, and then we're in court
I think just a few days later. We have a
zoom or a teleconference court hearing to argue all this,
and the judge is asking the government. He's like, I'm
looking at this like it looks to me like that
might be what he's saying. And the government saying, no, no, no, no,
(28:49):
that's not what he's saying. He's not saying he classes
by anything. And the judge says, well, did you ask
him what he meant? And no, nobody actually asked him
what he meant, So he orders them to go ask
the president what he meant by this tweet. What we
did force the government into actually getting an answer from
(29:11):
the President of the United States about whether he was
intending to declassify all these records, because the judge was like,
you can't just come in here and see what you
think he meant. You have no basis to know what
he meant. Go ask him what he meant.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Yeah, I mean, essentially the first response by the government
was just ignore Trump's traits.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
He doesn't mean what he tweeted.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
So we go into court. The judge says, no, Justice Department,
you don't just get to guess what he needs. And
so the order says that the Justice Department within like
four days shall file a declaration by the President or
an individual who has conferred directly with the President regarding
(29:52):
whether the President intended to order the declassification and release
without reaction of the report prepared by the special coultul
mull or blah blah blah blah blah. So the judge saying,
I want a statement under oath by the President or
somebody who directly talked with the President about whether he
intended to declassifying. The task falls to Mark Meadows, who
is chief of staff at the time. So he's got
(30:14):
to go to President Trump and asked, did you intend
to declassify documents when you made this tweet? And Mark
Meadows puts under oath.
Speaker 4 (30:23):
And again our friend Kyle Kanane.
Speaker 5 (30:25):
The President indicated to me that his statements on Twitter
were not self executing declassification orders and do not require
the declassification or release of any particular documents.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Kind Of doubtful to me that the word self executing
declassification order passed through the mouth of President Trump. Maybe
maybe it happened, I don't know. We don't know, Like
that I would have loved to go another round and said, well,
what do you mean indicated? What did he say?
Speaker 4 (30:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (30:53):
Not? What did he indicate?
Speaker 4 (30:55):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (30:55):
And did he really say the word self executing declassification order.
I think this is where we kind of reached the
point where, like, I think we're going to be pushing
our luck if we're like, no, judge, go back again
and make them, you know, make them ask more definitively.
Speaker 4 (31:12):
So.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
But at this point we knew, or at least I
was thinking it that that Trump although he tweeted that,
and it was it seemed like, I don't know, some
red meat to his supporters perhaps, but I also knew
that we're not going to see these records come out.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
So at this point, like, this is what I wanted.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
I wanted that declaration, that signed declaration where Mark meadows
in his first paragraph.
Speaker 5 (31:39):
I am chief of staff to President Donald J.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
Trump.
Speaker 5 (31:42):
I conferred with the President concerning his attentions with respect
to two statements he made on Twitter.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
And I just I was happy that we got this declaration,
and I think the headline, oh, yeah, here it is
Trump told his chief of staff he didn't mean what
he tweeted that was the headline, and that was true,
and so those documents were never released. But that I
think that's also just a good example of how filing
itself becomes news in a FOYA case. God, that was fun, man,
(32:12):
Remember that that was so much fun. We had a
blast just kind of marching in there been like hey,
Mark Metal said it.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Jason and I both have distrust of authority at times,
So that's why this is fun.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
It's so true, that's what makes it fun.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
But that healthy distrust of authority we have is also
why we do what we do and why forcing the
government to abide by the Foya Statutes is so important.
The government in America is accountable to American citizens. We
don't have to accept whatever explanations they.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
Want to provide.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
They owe us this information, whether they want to give
it to us or not. Coming up on the next
episode of Disclosure, how the hell was he duped by
Russian paranksters? This is Jerome Powell, He's the chairman of
the FED.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
Did that actually happen?
Speaker 4 (33:03):
We've even invited a few comedians to read the emails.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Dear redacted, there will be only one winner who has
big gun. Could you please send us some Printy Press,
the week in prime American dollars.
Speaker 4 (33:16):
From Bloomberg and No Smiling. This is Disclosure.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
The show is hosted by Matt Topic and me Jason Leopold.
It's produced by Heather Schroering and Sean Cannon. For No Smiling,
our editor for Bloomberg is Jeff Grocott. Our executive producers
for Bloomberg are Sage Bauman and me Jason Leopold, and
our executive producers for No Smiling are Sean Cannon, Heather
Schrowing and Matt Topic. The Disclosure theme song is by Nick,
(33:43):
with additional music by Nick An Epidemic Sound sound design
and mixing is by Sean Cannon. Documents were read this
week by Kyle Kanaane. For more transparency news and important
document dumps, you can subscribe to my weekly Foier Files
newsletter at Bloomberg dot com slash Foya Files That's Foia Files.
(34:06):
To get every episode early on Apple Podcasts. Become a
Bloomberg dot com subscriber today. Check out our special intro
offer right now at Bloomberg dot com Slash podcast offer,
or click the link in the show notes. You'll also
unlock deep reporting data and analysis from reporters around the world.
Speaker 4 (34:24):
We'll see you again next Tuesday.
My expertise is getting secrets from the government, and damn it,
I was going to get those Muller records first.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
That's investigative journalist Jason Leopold. These days, he's reporting for
Bloomberg News. But on Saturday, November two, twenty nineteen, Jason
and his team were waiting impatiently for documents from Robert
Muller's investigation into Russian interference in the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
It was the first tranne from thousands of pages of
interview summaries that the FBI had tried to keep secret,
but we managed to pry them loose.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Jason was certain there'd be important information in these pages
and he couldn't wait to break whatever news they contained.
You see, CNN was also getting these records. The issue
was that Jason's copy was supposed to be mailed to Chicago.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Meanwhile, CNN is in Washington, DC and the records office
is in Virginia, so they're going to get it first.
And I was like, there's no way I will accept this.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
So after some hounding, the government agreed to reroute the
package in get it to Jason's team as quickly as possible,
and then on this Saturday. In twenty nineteen, the race
against time began when Jason's colleague in DC received a
package with.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
A CD inside a CD like it was nineteen ninety nine, which,
by the way, is how they still do it to
this day.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
But with the records firmly in hand, the gravity of
the situation set in.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
It was like, holy, we just got the first release
from the Mauler investigation and immediately just went crazy and
saying that like, all right, we have this. We don't
know if CNN has it, but we have an advantage.
It's Saturday. We're willing to work on a Saturday.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
It didn't take long for Jason and his colleagues to
find something that public deserve to know.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
There was this conspiracy floating around as it related to
the Democratic National Committee and the hack of their emails.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike. He
was referring to a cybersecurity firm at the center of
a conspiracy theory that suggests you the Crane not rush Up,
was behind the DNC server hack in the twenty sixteen elections.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
And so these records revealed that it was actually Paul
Maniford who was pushing and floating.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
That conspiracy theory. It was such a big deal at
the time, you know.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
So we got the first story up just honestly, within
an hour, and then just kept filling it out.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Sure enough, Jason and the team beat CNN by ours man.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Everyone there was just so excited, and that evening it
was MSNBC that had a segment on it, joining us
now senior investigative reporter BuzzFeed News, Jason Leopold. The documents
provide a window into what was taking place behind the scenes,
and it allows the public to see what the FBI
memorialize firsthand.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
And boy was there a lot more, so much more.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
Than we can fit into this episode. But the thing is.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
We wouldn't know any of it, not one bit, if
not for a little thing called the Freedom of Information
Act the FOIA.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
It's something Jason and I know very well because we
both thought to get these documents released, which is what
we do together every.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Day, and that's what we're here to talk about. Cue
the music. I'm investigative journalist Jason Leopold. I spend most
of my days getting documents from the government.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
I'm attorney Matt Topic, and I fight them in court
to open their files when they don't want to.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
From Bloomberg and no smiling. This is Disclosure, a podcast
about crying loose government secrets, the Freedom of Information Act,
and the unexpected places that takes us.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
I mean, I'll just say it, Matt.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
I never thought that the Russia investigation and the Mueller
investigation that looked into Trump would have such a long life.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
We're seeing that in the news all over again.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Yeah, enormous news. The Trump Justice Department has now indicted
former FBI director James Comy Jim Comy, charged with lying
to Congress.
Speaker 5 (03:55):
Just days after the president publicly pressured Attorney General Pam
Bondi to pursue case against his opponents, including Comy by name.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
The indictment is tied to Comy's twenty twenty testimony in
front of Congress about Russian meddling in the twenty sixteen
presidential election.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
In about what three days before the Statute of Limitations
was going to explare.
Speaker 6 (04:13):
My family and I have known for years that there
are costs to standing up to Donald Trump. But I
have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I'm innocent,
So let's have a trial.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
It's funny because anytime there's something that is related to
a hot button issue, I immediately think back to did
I file a Foyer request for anything related to that
person or anything that they did. And when the news
broke about Comy being indicted, I immediately thought back to a
request that I filed in twenty eighteen. So back in
(04:46):
twenty eighteen, Trump said during an interview with the Daily
Caller that he had one hundred pictures of James Comy
and Robert Muller hugging and kissing each other. When he
said that that was a Foya opportunity. So I filled
a Foy request with the FBI and said, I would
(05:07):
like to have pictures of James Comy and Robert Muller hugging,
kissing each other.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
Oh, that's just so good.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
And the FBI responded by saying they couldn't locate any
photographs of Komy and Muller hugging and kissing.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
So I wrote a little story about it and tweeted
that app Matt, can you read what I tweeted?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
I would be honored. Jacob Foya update, the FBI has
not been able to locate any photographs of James Comy
and Robert Muller hugging and kissing parentheses. Trump City had
one hundred. My favorite part is you got a response
from Komy that says, my wife was so relieved, crying
laughing emoji.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
But Matt, as far as that recent indictment from this
year is concerned, I'm not going to get into whether
Kobe should or shouldn't have been charged, but the history
leading up to it is worth discussing. One of the
reasons why the effects of the Russian investigation are still
being felt now is because at the time, it was
(06:10):
an investigation that just dominated Trump's entire presidency, and Trump
was outraged that he was under federal investigation, which is
why it also became such a big bite for us
to get all those records that might never have seen
the light of day. So we're talking about something that
(06:32):
dates back to twenty sixteen when Comy was still in
charge of the FBI, right where the FBI was secretly
at work on an investigation called Crossfire Hurricane, and that
name was chosen as a homage to the Rolling Stones.
What's the song I forgot anyway, We'll figure it out.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
It's jumping Jack Flesh.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Jason Poser, Matt stop. Don't listen to him. I mean,
he's right, but don't listen to him.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Yeah, I am right.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
So the investigation was to essentially look into Trump's ties
to Russia's campaigns ties to Russia. It was opened after
if anyone recalls Trump saying Russia, if you're listening, I
hope you're able to find the thirty thousand emails that
are missing. The investigation also centered around the sources of
(07:26):
information that we're coming into the FBI, including what we
know now or very suspect sources that were essentially saying
Trump has these ties to Russia, campaign has these ties
to Russia. There's these communications that are taking place with
people at the Kremlin. FBI opens up this investigation. Trump
gets elected president, and immediately after he's elected, multiple congressional
(07:48):
committees start these Russia related investigations. There was lots of
leaks taking place that kind of forced the Attorney General
at the time Justice Department, Jeff Sessions, to ultimately recuse himself.
Speaker 7 (08:05):
My staff recommended recuse them.
Speaker 8 (08:07):
They said that since I had involvement with the campaign,
I should not be involved in any campaign investigation.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
And then Collby is fired from the FBI by Trump
in May twenty seventeen, which Kobe ultimately claimed was related
to his handling of the Russia investigation.
Speaker 6 (08:24):
I take the President's words. I know I was fired
because of something about the way I was conducting the
Russian investigation was in some way putting pressure on him,
in some way irritating him, and he decided to fire
me because of that.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
So, with Sessions recusing himself, this led to Robert Muller,
former director of the FBI, being appointed as special counsel,
you know, to make sure any investigation was independent.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
So really the person we have to thank is mister
magoo aka Jeff Sessions. I keep handy for these occasions.
The Wikipedia page for a list of nicknames used by
Donald Trump, I had to look it up at The
nickname for Jeff Session was mister McGoo.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
By the way, no nickname for Robber Maler on the list.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Surprisingly, fast forward to March twenty nineteen, we heard that
the Mala report was going to be submitted any day
to Bill Barr, the Attorney General at the time, who
told a Senate committee months earlier that the public deserved
to know what the results of the investigation were.
Speaker 7 (09:21):
My goal will be to provide as much transparency as
I can consistent with the law, and I will not
let personal, political, or other improper interests influence my decision.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I wanted to put that to the test, so I
called Matt, my attorney, also known as the Foya King
of Chicago, as his coffee mug says, Matt and his
team have gotten the government to release documents hundreds of times,
like when he forced the release of the Lakwan McDonald
dashcam footage.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
Mayor Manuel and the prosecutor battle for months to keep
the dash cam video under wraps. They lose when a
judge orders the release of.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
The video, and he helps me pry things lose from
the government, regardless of which party.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
Is in power.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
So the plan was that Jason would submit a FOYA
or Freedom of Information Act request for the report. And
let me just explain a little bit. You're going to
hear an awful lot about FOYA. So, FOYA is a
statute that says the public is entitled to government records since.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
It's a government of the people and for the people, right.
And this law says that the work of all these
government agencies, they're emails, notes, meeting man, it's all that stuff.
It should be available to the public if a member
of the public asks.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Except in certain circumstances where there's something like personal privacy
or an ongoing investigation, or national security or a long
list of things where the government can keep information secret
from you. But when they do that, you have a
right to go to court to challenge that. And Jason
and I have done that countless times in order to
get access to all kinds of records. But the first
step in using the FOYA is always the same. Make
(10:57):
a request, right.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Just request the docum from the government agency that would
have them. I do these requests as a journalists all
the time. It's my thing, but really anybody can do this,
and the law says that the government has to respond
within certain.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Timelines in the request either has to be denied, or,
as happens all the time, the agency just blows you
off and doesn't actually comply with their legal obligations. So
once that happens, then you can go to court to
challenge it.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Yeah, and I wanted to use this process to get
my hands on the Muller Report as quickly as possible.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
So he makes the request and then like the next thing,
that happens publicly is that Bill Barr sends his letter
to Congress with the quote principal conclusions.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
So what's out in the public is not the Muller
report itself. At this point, we couldn't see Mueller's take,
just the summary from bar.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
They wanted to get their version of what the report
said out in the world and have it get some
traction before they release the report. Yes, yes, and this
is like, this drives me nuts. I'm sure it drove
Jason nuts. It drove a lot of people nuts. That
to me is like FOYA is screaming like, let me in,
let me in. This is my job. Now they're saying
(12:10):
one thing. You want to know what it really says.
Then you got to get the documents.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
And for just a second, it looks like we might
get a FOYA compliant version of the report quickly because
the DOJ granted expedited processing to my request. Well, except
that they almost immediately tell us that it'll take them
even longer to process the report under the Freedom of
Information Act because it fell within quote unusual circumstances. So
(12:39):
we sue the government to get that report. Oh and
while this is all going on, something a little weird happens.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
So about a month after Bill Barr released his initial
summary of Mueller's findings, they finally released the first version
of the mull report itself, but it wasn't actually processed
and redacted. According to the FOYA stachues, it was FOYA esque,
so they were deact to things like grain jury stuff
and like harm to ongoing investigations, or they just use
(13:06):
their own kind of shorthand for it instead of the
actual FOYA statute.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Harm to ongoing matter, sorry andthrow matter.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Yeah, right right, that's the right, right. So we got
into court and we're immediately like they got to release
the FOYA version like now, like next week, two days,
like really really fast. They shouldn't need that much time.
They've already been through the report. They're already telling everybody
what the report says. Like they need to release a
FOYA compliant version of this report like as soon as possible,
(13:33):
because every day that goes by is another day in
which there's a story out there and we don't really know.
Speaker 8 (13:37):
If that's what the report says or not, which it's
important to note, is creating an environment that the judge said,
quote I think is going to cause a significant portion
of the American public to be concerned about whether there
is transparency.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
So we're basically putting the title of the metal, trying
to make this lawsuit go as fast as we can
get the judge to go, and he was willing to
go pretty fast. So they get a deadline by which
they have to properly review and reject the report.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Then our Foyer redacted report comes out May sixth, twenty nineteen.
But all the redactions were largely the same. The big
difference is that instead of the weird shorthand, they were
now citing Freedom of Information Act exemptions to justify what
they would keep secret.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
But this stuff was really important because that's how we
make sure the government is complying with the law.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Yes, exactly, Matt Accountability. Plus, now that we knew how
they were trying to justify the redactions, we could challenge
those in court, which we did and.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
You'll hear all about that after the break.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Before the break, we had just gotten our hands on
a Foyer process copy of the Mola report where the
government has said, here's what we want to keep secret,
and here are the exemptions that let us do that.
So now it's time to go back to court where
we say, oh, you want to keep that a secret
because you think the Freedom of Information Act allows you to, okay,
prove it.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Yeah, because that's what FOYA is like. Stuff gets withheld,
stuff gets rejected. But the law says that the government
has to prove in court, if challenged, that everything that
they withheld, that there's a basis in the statute to
do that, and they have to prove that with some
level of evidence, and they have to show how the
exemptions actually apply.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Yeah, we really wanted to challenge a lot of the
redactions that were hiding the reasons why Muller concluded that
some people Donald Trump Junior being a big one here,
wouldn't be charged with crimes even though some of their
conduct was already publicly detailed.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
Okay, so let me explain a little bit more about
how this works. Normally, the government just explains everything they withheld,
and they put it in these declarations to describe what
they withheld and explain why it's exempt like it rises
and falls with that. But sometimes the court will actually
say no, I want to look at it, especially if
there's kind of reasons to be concerned about whether the
(16:04):
government is really being straight about it.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Yeah, we really weren't sure what the judge in our
case was going to do at this point.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
And so the next big thing that happened in the
case is March fifth, twenty twenty, which is like just
before the world shuts down for COVID. I remember, I'm
in New Orleans for the Nikar Conference, which is a
conference of like mostly data journalists and alta foya stuff.
So I'm there when we get this decision, and the judge,
(16:31):
who's a Bush appointee just like demolishes Bill Barr and says,
I'm going to read this report myself because of this
super shady way that the Justice Department went about first
releasing like their summary and other things. And then there
were disputes between Mueller's team and the Attorney General Bill
Barr about whether Bill Barr was mischaracterizing things like that
(16:54):
whole ball of X turned into the judge saying this
is all fishy. He writes a very scathing opinion.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Yeah, we have a couple of excerpts here from it,
and we've asked comedian Kyle Kanane to read it.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
All right, give it a shot.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
The inconsistencies between Attorney General Bar's statements, made at the
time when the public did not have access to the
redacted version of the Mullor Report, caused the court to
seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt
to influence public disclosure about the Mullor Report in favor
of President Trump.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
He's calling into question the credibility of the sitting Attorney
General of the United States. Like that's a big deal.
Bear in mind, this is Bill Barr, So this is
Trump version one. This is when like most of the
cabinet people, you know, most of the people in positions
of power, they are people with like long Republican pedigrees.
(17:46):
And I remember calling Jason and we were both like,
oh my god, Oh my god, did you see that part?
Can you believe what he just said? And you know,
it was, oh man, it was unbelievable. But what that
meant was that the DJ had to send over a
secret package to the court. Then, after looking over everything
for a few months, the judge granted summary judgment on
September thirtieth, twenty twenty, which mostly upheld the redactions and
(18:12):
effectively ended our case at the district court level. So
with that lost stinging a little.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
We looked ahead to the appeals process because there were
things that we felt like we had a.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
Good shot at challenging on appeal.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
And in particular, we really wanted to better understand why
certain people weren't charged with any crimes even though they're
mentioned in the report and there's information about him in
the report, there wasn't an explanation about why, for example,
Donald Trump Junior wasn't charged with any crimes despite things
that were found in the investigation. So we kind of
zeroed in on what we wanted to do next, and
(18:43):
that's what we were focusing on when we looked ahead
to an appeal. And a reason that that was really
important was because there was this constant drum beat out
of Trump World that this was an illegal political witch hunt,
and we thought that a real good way to get
to the bottom of that, whether that is true or
not true, was to take a close look at how
(19:04):
they handled Donald Trump Junior, which would tend to show
you if this was an illegal political witch hunt, then
you would think that they went out of their way
to investigate Don Jior when there was no basis to
do so. But conversely, if they had the goods on
Don Junior and they didn't charge him. That would suggest
it's the opposite of a political witch hunt.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
And there's a huge public interest in knowing did Mueller
do a good job or not.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
And so we took that up to the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals and we argued over that like pretty
narrow issue, which we.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
Actually have tape of the government.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Is withholding not only the names of Trump campaign officials
who were investigated and not charged, but also the justification
for those decisions. Oral arguments are really fun, but the
most rewarding thing is when the other lawyers arguing and
the judges are taking the stuff that you wrote in
your brief and they're using that material to pound your
opponent into the ground. And that's exactly what happened. They
(20:01):
completely understood our theory of how to look at all this.
Speaker 9 (20:04):
The public's need for understanding is really high. Here the
president is saying it's a scam, and.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
They just rampaged on this government lawyer who was evading
their questions and just trying to like make the thing
go away.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
A clear evid insury showing is required to establish government
misconduct for purposes are not.
Speaker 9 (20:21):
Talking about misconductor. This rationale it says the public is
entitled to understand.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
And it didn't go away.
Speaker 9 (20:30):
The individual has been identified, The facts with respect of
that individual are in.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
The public record. They just they really beat them up.
Speaker 9 (20:37):
The only thing that's missing that you've redacted is the
explanation for why the government took the position it took
in the report.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
And the outcome was because of our lawsuit, the public
got to know why Muller didn't charge Donald Trump Junior
with any crabs because what got unredacted was the portions
that said we looked at Donald Trump Junior for sort
of computer hacking type of crimes.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Let's turn again to our friend Kyle Kanaane for the
exact wording from the report.
Speaker 5 (21:05):
The office considered whether Donald Trump Junior intentionally accessed a
protected computer without authorization in violation of Title eighteen, United
States Code, Section ten thirty, subsection eight, paragraph two, sub
paragraph C.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
At subsection C, paragraph two, sub.
Speaker 5 (21:18):
Paragraph you get the point providing penalties for quote whoever
intentionally access as a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized
access and thereby obtains information from any protected computer.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
All right, mac continue.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
So they believed that they had sufficient evidence to charge
him with a misdemeanor, but they decided in an exercise
of discretion that they weren't going to charge him, and
they decided not to charge him with the felony version
because they didn't know definitively that they could prove that
the value of that information exceeded I think it was
(21:57):
a five thousand dollars threshold in order to argid as
a felony.
Speaker 4 (22:02):
So what's your read on it?
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Then it showed me, and this is just my opinion
that Mueller handled Trump World with kid gloves in the
course of this investigation and didn't go at them as
hard as I think prosecutors often do in other cases.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
But you know, I do think it's worth noting that
these things we were able to probably lose from the government.
Those reactions were originally agreed upon by Robert Muller's team
and Bill Barr's team, So this wasn't just Bill barrside
trying to keep things secret.
Speaker 4 (22:32):
This was also mullerside trying to keep things secret.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
What's your takeaway there, Matt, These are institutionalists who are
primarily concerned with preserving the reputation and integrity of the
institutions that they're working for, which is a different question
from like serving the broader public interest of the United
States of America. And that is why we have a
FOYA statute, because we know that that's what government officials
(23:00):
are very often going to do. In fact, a lot
of times they can't help themselves. I don't even know
that I would be any better if I was in
those shoes. But that's why we have to have a
law that drags these documents out of them, because they
don't want to be scrutinized. So the conclusion I would
draw is that Muller didn't want to be scrutinized about
why he didn't charge Donald Trump Junior, which means there's
(23:23):
a good chance that's why it's actually been redacted. It's
something they just don't want us to know because they
don't want us to be able to scrutinize them and
question their work and hold them accountable. But that is
something that we as Americans deserve to know and have
a right to know. So this is a perfect example
of like what FOYA does, why it's important, and what
(23:44):
it can get you.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
These cases were to me the best example of how
powerful FOYA is and keeping the public informed about what
their government is up to and alerting the public to
what was taking place behind the scenes, which was capped
off by literally unredacting that section of the Mulla Report
(24:05):
and seeing Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
Junior's name there.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
I mean, that was incredible, but I will say not
as incredible as it could have been, which you'll hear
all about after the break. So on the other side
of the break you heard about some of the big
wins and big news that came out of our attempts
to get the Mullo Report unredacted. All in all, we
ended up filing five different lawsuits for information from the
(24:30):
Muller investigation. But God, Matt, do you remember the time
we thought we might just get every single thing we
could have ever wanted from the Maller investigation, and then
some mark meadows this was awesome. Here's what I remember.
I remember that Trump tweeted.
Speaker 5 (24:48):
I have fully authorized the total declassification of any and
all documents pertaining to the single greatest political crime in
American history, the Russia hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton emails scandal,
no reactions exclamation point October sixth, twenty twenty.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
So I read that and immediately reached for my phone
to call Matt, and I said, Matt, we have to
file an emergency motion in court, and like, I mean,
I know what an emergency emotion is, but the fact
that that was that immediately popped into my head.
Speaker 4 (25:21):
I was like, we got to do this. Did you
see what Trump tweeted? This relates to everything.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
That we are asking for because we are still battling
the government in terms of trying to get some of
these records released.
Speaker 4 (25:31):
Matt, do you recall that phone call in your response?
Speaker 2 (25:34):
I mean, I got really excited because I thought it
was a great idea. There's all these records that are
being with Hell's remos based on them being classified or
for other exemption claims, and here the president, who has
the authority to declassified documents, is saying that not only
are these declassified, he's saying he has already ordered them declassed.
It was like a cry for help, and it was
(25:57):
like we were going to help him, Like this is
what he he wants all this stuff declassified and released,
and the quote unquote deep State won't do it. Well,
Like we'll help, right, Like we can help make that happen.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
I'm not even sure if it was a strategy at
that point.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
It was honestly wanted to get you know, I certainly
just wanted to get these records, but I was also thinking,
what could the response by the government ultimately be to this.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yeah, because even if you don't get records, you can
learn a lot from the response itself. They'll give you
declarations and descriptions of records that lets you understand things
like what's the volume of communication on this issue, who's involved,
when were they involved? And sometimes those things are newsworthy
even if you can't get all the details. So it
(26:44):
was exciting and look like it was going to be
great for the public, but also a lot of fun
to make the government answer for this and say, the
president is saying these are declassified and you're not releasing them,
like explain yourself. And in terms of timing, we're like
a month before the twenty twenty election. Russia hoax kind
of language is all over the campaign. This is a
(27:05):
huge campaign issue, and like we maybe have the opportunity
to just blow open like a whole bunch of additional
documents right before the election, because the president says that
he wants them all released.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
So follow this emergency motion and what's the process, Matt,
you know, and an emergency motion? Right, so so because
that's what those are the words I use.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
That was that right? Was it right? An emergency motion?
Speaker 2 (27:30):
Yeah, you called it the right thing. That tweet was
October sixth, and by October eighth, we file what's called
emergency motion of plaintiffs for court order requiring defendants to
reprocess the Muller Report before the November third, twenty twenty
presidential election in light of the president's recent declassification in weiver.
And then we spend just like two pages explaining what
(27:54):
the case is about, in reminding the court that it
had repeatedly recognized the importance of these records to the
November twenty twenty election. And then we laid out the tweets,
and we said, this should be pretty simple. It doesn't
require any analysis, it doesn't require any consultation with anybody else.
The President said to release this, he has the authority
(28:15):
to release it. So order them to reprocess it, you know,
we have to like sort of confer with the government,
and they indicated, not surprisingly, that they would oppose and
that they didn't read the tweet the.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Way we read the tweet.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
But we filed the motion, and then we're in court
I think just a few days later. We have a
zoom or a teleconference court hearing to argue all this,
and the judge is asking the government. He's like, I'm
looking at this like it looks to me like that
might be what he's saying. And the government saying, no, no, no, no,
(28:49):
that's not what he's saying. He's not saying he classes
by anything. And the judge says, well, did you ask
him what he meant? And no, nobody actually asked him
what he meant, So he orders them to go ask
the president what he meant by this tweet. What we
did force the government into actually getting an answer from
(29:11):
the President of the United States about whether he was
intending to declassify all these records, because the judge was like,
you can't just come in here and see what you
think he meant. You have no basis to know what
he meant. Go ask him what he meant.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Yeah, I mean, essentially the first response by the government
was just ignore Trump's traits.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
He doesn't mean what he tweeted.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
So we go into court. The judge says, no, Justice Department,
you don't just get to guess what he needs. And
so the order says that the Justice Department within like
four days shall file a declaration by the President or
an individual who has conferred directly with the President regarding
(29:52):
whether the President intended to order the declassification and release
without reaction of the report prepared by the special coultul
mull or blah blah blah blah blah. So the judge saying,
I want a statement under oath by the President or
somebody who directly talked with the President about whether he
intended to declassifying. The task falls to Mark Meadows, who
is chief of staff at the time. So he's got
(30:14):
to go to President Trump and asked, did you intend
to declassify documents when you made this tweet? And Mark
Meadows puts under oath.
Speaker 4 (30:23):
And again our friend Kyle Kanane.
Speaker 5 (30:25):
The President indicated to me that his statements on Twitter
were not self executing declassification orders and do not require
the declassification or release of any particular documents.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Kind Of doubtful to me that the word self executing
declassification order passed through the mouth of President Trump. Maybe
maybe it happened, I don't know. We don't know, Like
that I would have loved to go another round and said, well,
what do you mean indicated? What did he say?
Speaker 4 (30:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (30:53):
Not? What did he indicate?
Speaker 4 (30:55):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (30:55):
And did he really say the word self executing declassification order.
I think this is where we kind of reached the
point where, like, I think we're going to be pushing
our luck if we're like, no, judge, go back again
and make them, you know, make them ask more definitively.
Speaker 4 (31:12):
So.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
But at this point we knew, or at least I
was thinking it that that Trump although he tweeted that,
and it was it seemed like, I don't know, some
red meat to his supporters perhaps, but I also knew
that we're not going to see these records come out.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
So at this point, like, this is what I wanted.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
I wanted that declaration, that signed declaration where Mark meadows
in his first paragraph.
Speaker 5 (31:39):
I am chief of staff to President Donald J.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
Trump.
Speaker 5 (31:42):
I conferred with the President concerning his attentions with respect
to two statements he made on Twitter.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
And I just I was happy that we got this declaration,
and I think the headline, oh, yeah, here it is
Trump told his chief of staff he didn't mean what
he tweeted that was the headline, and that was true,
and so those documents were never released. But that I
think that's also just a good example of how filing
itself becomes news in a FOYA case. God, that was fun, man,
(32:12):
Remember that that was so much fun. We had a
blast just kind of marching in there been like hey,
Mark Metal said it.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Jason and I both have distrust of authority at times,
So that's why this is fun.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
It's so true, that's what makes it fun.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
But that healthy distrust of authority we have is also
why we do what we do and why forcing the
government to abide by the Foya Statutes is so important.
The government in America is accountable to American citizens. We
don't have to accept whatever explanations they.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
Want to provide.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
They owe us this information, whether they want to give
it to us or not. Coming up on the next
episode of Disclosure, how the hell was he duped by
Russian paranksters? This is Jerome Powell, He's the chairman of
the FED.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
Did that actually happen?
Speaker 4 (33:03):
We've even invited a few comedians to read the emails.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Dear redacted, there will be only one winner who has
big gun. Could you please send us some Printy Press,
the week in prime American dollars.
Speaker 4 (33:16):
From Bloomberg and No Smiling. This is Disclosure.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
The show is hosted by Matt Topic and me Jason Leopold.
It's produced by Heather Schroering and Sean Cannon. For No Smiling,
our editor for Bloomberg is Jeff Grocott. Our executive producers
for Bloomberg are Sage Bauman and me Jason Leopold, and
our executive producers for No Smiling are Sean Cannon, Heather
Schrowing and Matt Topic. The Disclosure theme song is by Nick,
(33:43):
with additional music by Nick An Epidemic Sound sound design
and mixing is by Sean Cannon. Documents were read this
week by Kyle Kanaane. For more transparency news and important
document dumps, you can subscribe to my weekly Foier Files
newsletter at Bloomberg dot com slash Foya Files That's Foia Files.
(34:06):
To get every episode early on Apple Podcasts. Become a
Bloomberg dot com subscriber today. Check out our special intro
offer right now at Bloomberg dot com Slash podcast offer,
or click the link in the show notes. You'll also
unlock deep reporting data and analysis from reporters around the world.
Speaker 4 (34:24):
We'll see you again next Tuesday.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.