1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,440 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,680
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. How speaker Nancy

6
00:00:22,720 --> 00:00:26,000
Speaker 1: Pelosi is giving the president a deadline. He has until

7
00:00:26,120 --> 00:00:29,960
Speaker 1: Thursday to release the transcript of his call with Ukraine's president,

8
00:00:30,240 --> 00:00:34,559
Speaker 1: subject of a whistleblower complaint. It reportedly says that President

9
00:00:34,560 --> 00:00:38,680
Speaker 1: Trump tried to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate former

10
00:00:38,760 --> 00:00:42,960
Speaker 1: Vice President Joe Biden and his son. The President appeared

11
00:00:42,960 --> 00:00:47,320
Speaker 1: to acknowledge at least that that conversation took place on Sunday.

12
00:00:47,680 --> 00:00:52,960
Speaker 1: Conversation I had was largely congratulatory. We're largely the fact

13
00:00:53,000 --> 00:00:57,200
Speaker 1: that we don't want our people like Vice President Biden

14
00:00:57,240 --> 00:01:00,960
Speaker 1: and his son creating to the big ruption. Already in

15
00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:05,800
Speaker 1: joining me is Andrew Cant, professor at Fordham Law School.

16
00:01:06,240 --> 00:01:10,959
Speaker 1: Andrew this complaint comes under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act,

17
00:01:11,080 --> 00:01:15,040
Speaker 1: passed in tell us what's supposed to happen when a

18
00:01:15,080 --> 00:01:18,720
Speaker 1: whistle blower comes forward? Well, some of the things June

19
00:01:18,720 --> 00:01:22,080
Speaker 1: that we're supposed to happen actually already have. The whistleblower

20
00:01:22,160 --> 00:01:26,679
Speaker 1: is supposed to transmit a complaint to what's called the

21
00:01:26,680 --> 00:01:29,720
Speaker 1: Inspector General of the for the Intelligence Committee, and that happened.

22
00:01:30,240 --> 00:01:33,039
Speaker 1: That inspector general is supposed to decide whether the complaint

23
00:01:33,160 --> 00:01:36,560
Speaker 1: is credible or not, and that happened that the inspector

24
00:01:36,600 --> 00:01:39,560
Speaker 1: General determined it to be credible. And then what has

25
00:01:39,600 --> 00:01:42,080
Speaker 1: also happened is that inspector General is supposed to forward

26
00:01:42,160 --> 00:01:45,200
Speaker 1: it to the Director of National Intelligence. Uh, and he

27
00:01:45,360 --> 00:01:47,240
Speaker 1: did that, and at that point it's supposed to be

28
00:01:47,240 --> 00:01:50,400
Speaker 1: transmitted to Congress. That's where the breakdown has happened. The

29
00:01:51,080 --> 00:01:54,560
Speaker 1: Director of National Intelligence is withholding the document from the

30
00:01:54,680 --> 00:01:58,240
Speaker 1: Congressional Intelligence Committee. And why is he holding it? What

31
00:01:58,280 --> 00:02:02,560
Speaker 1: are the reasons? Stated? Well, some people think there may

32
00:02:02,560 --> 00:02:05,640
Speaker 1: be an underlying claim of some kind of executive privilege

33
00:02:05,640 --> 00:02:09,040
Speaker 1: of the president. But for now, uh, the Director of

34
00:02:09,120 --> 00:02:12,000
Speaker 1: National Intelligence is merely saying, pointing to this statute that

35
00:02:12,040 --> 00:02:16,520
Speaker 1: you mentioned, that the complaint does not does not talk

36
00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:21,200
Speaker 1: about a quote urgent concern facing the intelligence community, and

37
00:02:21,240 --> 00:02:24,639
Speaker 1: therefore does not need to be transmitted to Congress. Can

38
00:02:24,680 --> 00:02:28,880
Speaker 1: the d N I countermand the Inspector General's determination that

39
00:02:28,960 --> 00:02:32,120
Speaker 1: there was an urgent need. Well, most people will look

40
00:02:32,120 --> 00:02:34,359
Speaker 1: at the statute and I agree with this, think no,

41
00:02:34,639 --> 00:02:37,799
Speaker 1: it's it seems pretty clear that the statute just sees

42
00:02:37,880 --> 00:02:40,160
Speaker 1: the d n I as a conduit that once it's

43
00:02:40,200 --> 00:02:43,840
Speaker 1: been deemed credible by the Inspector General, the DNA is

44
00:02:43,880 --> 00:02:48,560
Speaker 1: supposed to pass it directly along to the Congress. And

45
00:02:48,600 --> 00:02:52,520
Speaker 1: why was the Justice Department involved in the determination by

46
00:02:52,520 --> 00:02:55,840
Speaker 1: the d n I. Is that usual? Well, we don't

47
00:02:55,840 --> 00:02:57,920
Speaker 1: know for sure, but most likely they were asked to

48
00:02:57,960 --> 00:03:01,480
Speaker 1: give a legal opinion on pap stable basis for withholding it.

49
00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:04,520
Speaker 1: There's an office within the Justice Department called the the

50
00:03:04,600 --> 00:03:07,560
Speaker 1: Office of Legal Counsel, and they're kind of the you know,

51
00:03:07,639 --> 00:03:10,880
Speaker 1: the the interpreter of the hardest legal questions facing the

52
00:03:10,880 --> 00:03:13,760
Speaker 1: executive and they're sometimes asked to weigh in on those

53
00:03:13,840 --> 00:03:16,960
Speaker 1: kinds of questions. So, if the person at the heart

54
00:03:17,120 --> 00:03:21,720
Speaker 1: of the whistleblowers complaint in this case, supposedly the president

55
00:03:22,120 --> 00:03:25,760
Speaker 1: can block the revelation of the complaint, does it then

56
00:03:25,800 --> 00:03:30,000
Speaker 1: defeat the purpose of a whistleblower law? It does, and

57
00:03:30,080 --> 00:03:32,880
Speaker 1: it just points to the larger problem that we're starting

58
00:03:32,919 --> 00:03:36,320
Speaker 1: to talk about in these years of of President Trump's

59
00:03:36,320 --> 00:03:39,520
Speaker 1: administration is that our laws and institutions are really not

60
00:03:40,120 --> 00:03:43,360
Speaker 1: designed to handle a situation where it's the president himself

61
00:03:43,400 --> 00:03:47,480
Speaker 1: who is who is causing legal and and foreign policy concerns.

62
00:03:48,240 --> 00:03:51,119
Speaker 1: What can the Democrats do? Suppose they want to play hardball?

63
00:03:51,880 --> 00:03:55,279
Speaker 1: So far we haven't seen much progress in the Judiciary

64
00:03:55,320 --> 00:03:58,720
Speaker 1: Committee hearings. So what could they do? Well, they've already

65
00:03:58,720 --> 00:04:02,920
Speaker 1: sent a subpoena to the d n I, although he

66
00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:04,640
Speaker 1: has said he's not going to show up because he

67
00:04:04,640 --> 00:04:07,800
Speaker 1: said it was too too quick a timetable. Uh you know,

68
00:04:07,840 --> 00:04:12,040
Speaker 1: they could seek to discover the identity of the whistleblower

69
00:04:12,560 --> 00:04:15,440
Speaker 1: and ask that man or woman to uh you know,

70
00:04:15,480 --> 00:04:19,000
Speaker 1: to appear, or even subpoena that person to appear before

71
00:04:19,040 --> 00:04:22,320
Speaker 1: them to directly hear from that person. Um, you know,

72
00:04:22,320 --> 00:04:24,880
Speaker 1: there's probably some other routes they could take, but those

73
00:04:24,880 --> 00:04:28,880
Speaker 1: are the most obvious. And what would they have a

74
00:04:28,920 --> 00:04:33,720
Speaker 1: continuing problem with people not showing up, people not listening

75
00:04:33,880 --> 00:04:38,320
Speaker 1: or to subpoenas. Is there any criminal action that can

76
00:04:38,360 --> 00:04:40,880
Speaker 1: be taken? Again? People people who will not show up

77
00:04:40,920 --> 00:04:44,880
Speaker 1: for subpoena. Well, so Congress isn't a little bit of

78
00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:47,919
Speaker 1: a tough spot. The ordinary process is that in for

79
00:04:48,120 --> 00:04:53,640
Speaker 1: real severe non compliance with congressional subpoenas is that there

80
00:04:53,640 --> 00:04:56,919
Speaker 1: would be a request that the executive branch initiate a

81
00:04:56,920 --> 00:05:01,080
Speaker 1: criminal prosecution. But obviously, um that might work with if

82
00:05:01,120 --> 00:05:03,880
Speaker 1: it's a private party who's resisting, that's very unlikely to

83
00:05:03,920 --> 00:05:05,960
Speaker 1: work in a case like this, where you know it's

84
00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:07,600
Speaker 1: the president of the United States and the people who

85
00:05:07,600 --> 00:05:10,440
Speaker 1: work for him who are resisting. So Congress is in

86
00:05:10,520 --> 00:05:13,039
Speaker 1: a bit of a bind. Some people say that the

87
00:05:13,080 --> 00:05:16,960
Speaker 1: Congress itself has a power that's sometimes called inherent contempt

88
00:05:17,440 --> 00:05:20,680
Speaker 1: where without going to the courts, are going to the

89
00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:23,640
Speaker 1: executive branch. Congress could, for example, find somebody who has

90
00:05:23,680 --> 00:05:27,280
Speaker 1: defined Congress that power hasn't been used for quite some time,

91
00:05:27,320 --> 00:05:30,200
Speaker 1: and it's uh, it's current vitality is a little bit

92
00:05:30,279 --> 00:05:35,720
Speaker 1: in dispute. This is certainly increasing calls from for impeachment,

93
00:05:35,839 --> 00:05:38,960
Speaker 1: even some people who were on the fence. For example,

94
00:05:39,160 --> 00:05:44,000
Speaker 1: the Adam Shift who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said

95
00:05:44,040 --> 00:05:47,719
Speaker 1: that this is really crosses the line, basically the rubicon.

96
00:05:48,520 --> 00:05:52,400
Speaker 1: So if they do drop articles of impeachment, is if

97
00:05:52,440 --> 00:05:56,440
Speaker 1: there is an actual impeachment. Will any of the people

98
00:05:56,480 --> 00:06:00,760
Speaker 1: who have refused to testify or refused to comply with subpoenas,

99
00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:06,680
Speaker 1: does the Congress have any more authority over them? Well,

100
00:06:06,720 --> 00:06:10,320
Speaker 1: so your Congress has additional authority in the sense that

101
00:06:10,920 --> 00:06:14,000
Speaker 1: um it might expand a bit the scope of what

102
00:06:14,040 --> 00:06:16,480
Speaker 1: they can plausibly said to be looking at if they're

103
00:06:16,520 --> 00:06:19,599
Speaker 1: also considering impeachment in addition to the things that Congress

104
00:06:19,680 --> 00:06:23,000
Speaker 1: usually considers, like you know, passing a new law or

105
00:06:23,279 --> 00:06:26,040
Speaker 1: or understanding how current laws are being enforced. So kind

106
00:06:26,040 --> 00:06:28,360
Speaker 1: of it kind of broadens the scope a bit about

107
00:06:28,400 --> 00:06:31,000
Speaker 1: what is legitimate congressional inquiries, but it doesn't really give

108
00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:35,000
Speaker 1: them any more power to demand compliance if people are

109
00:06:35,040 --> 00:06:38,040
Speaker 1: going to keep refusing to to show up, refusing to

110
00:06:38,080 --> 00:06:40,359
Speaker 1: answer questions. You know, if these things end up getting

111
00:06:40,360 --> 00:06:43,520
Speaker 1: litigated in court, um, a court is probably a more

112
00:06:43,560 --> 00:06:47,839
Speaker 1: receptive to Congress's arguments. Though. If if there is impeachment

113
00:06:47,839 --> 00:06:51,200
Speaker 1: for seedings underway. That's why I wonder with the calls

114
00:06:51,200 --> 00:06:54,920
Speaker 1: for impeachment often you hear, well, they'll have more ability

115
00:06:54,960 --> 00:06:57,239
Speaker 1: to get things moving, but it seems that if they'll

116
00:06:57,240 --> 00:07:00,279
Speaker 1: still be stuck in the courts and the core will

117
00:07:00,279 --> 00:07:03,280
Speaker 1: be stuck until they get to the Supreme Court. That

118
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:05,599
Speaker 1: could well be. Yeah, the you know, going to court

119
00:07:05,600 --> 00:07:08,800
Speaker 1: always takes a long time. It's not it's not really

120
00:07:08,800 --> 00:07:12,280
Speaker 1: a process that's designed to be quick moving. You know,

121
00:07:12,320 --> 00:07:14,200
Speaker 1: we want to hear all sides and give the judges

122
00:07:14,240 --> 00:07:16,400
Speaker 1: time to think about it. So it is a real problem.

123
00:07:16,480 --> 00:07:18,920
Speaker 1: That's why, you know, some have been suggesting that Congress really,

124
00:07:18,920 --> 00:07:22,640
Speaker 1: if it wants to begin advancing an inquiry more quickly,

125
00:07:23,040 --> 00:07:26,240
Speaker 1: needs to be looking to find its own sources of

126
00:07:26,320 --> 00:07:30,440
Speaker 1: information and having them testify rather than trying to litigate

127
00:07:30,480 --> 00:07:33,840
Speaker 1: with the executive branch to release documents that the executive

128
00:07:33,880 --> 00:07:36,800
Speaker 1: is holding. And finally, the President has said there was

129
00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:40,560
Speaker 1: no quid pro quo in this conversation. Does that make

130
00:07:40,600 --> 00:07:44,760
Speaker 1: a difference. Maybe maybe not. Um there's you know, for

131
00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:48,320
Speaker 1: for example, for the campaign finance laws. That doesn't make

132
00:07:48,320 --> 00:07:51,600
Speaker 1: a difference. If if the reason that the President was

133
00:07:51,640 --> 00:07:56,040
Speaker 1: seeking to pressure Ukraine like this was to have an

134
00:07:56,080 --> 00:07:59,480
Speaker 1: intervention that would help him in election with Joseph Biden.

135
00:08:00,040 --> 00:08:02,200
Speaker 1: And it doesn't matter whether there is an express quick

136
00:08:02,240 --> 00:08:05,360
Speaker 1: quo pro it's just illegal to seek to have a

137
00:08:05,720 --> 00:08:09,440
Speaker 1: foreign nationals give a thing of value to your presidential campaign. So,

138
00:08:09,520 --> 00:08:12,080
Speaker 1: but maybe in other circumstances it could. Thanks so much

139
00:08:12,080 --> 00:08:13,880
Speaker 1: for helping us straighten out some of this that say,

140
00:08:13,880 --> 00:08:18,760
Speaker 1: Andrew Canties, Professort Fordham Law School. Thanks for listening to

141
00:08:18,760 --> 00:08:22,080
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

142
00:08:22,120 --> 00:08:25,880
Speaker 1: the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg dot

143
00:08:25,880 --> 00:08:30,400
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg