1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,120
Speaker 1: episodes at the Bloomberg Law Podcast, on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:20,239
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Will President Trump

6
00:00:20,320 --> 00:00:23,800
Speaker 1: lose control of his long secret financial records held by

7
00:00:23,840 --> 00:00:27,760
Speaker 1: his accountants Mazars? The d C Federal Court of Appeals

8
00:00:27,880 --> 00:00:31,720
Speaker 1: ruled against Trump in one of several cases testing Congress's

9
00:00:31,720 --> 00:00:35,080
Speaker 1: power to obtain a sitting president's financial records in the

10
00:00:35,159 --> 00:00:38,239
Speaker 1: name of oversight. Joining me is Neil Kincoff, a professor

11
00:00:38,280 --> 00:00:42,560
Speaker 1: of constitutional law at Georgia State University College of Law. Neil,

12
00:00:42,600 --> 00:00:45,960
Speaker 1: there are several subpoena disputes before the courts, So how

13
00:00:46,040 --> 00:00:49,159
Speaker 1: significant is this one ruling by a d C Federal

14
00:00:49,159 --> 00:00:53,360
Speaker 1: appeals court. It's tremendously significant. First of all, it's significant

15
00:00:53,360 --> 00:00:56,720
Speaker 1: because it orders the president's accountant to turn over tax returns,

16
00:00:56,920 --> 00:00:59,520
Speaker 1: and I think those will be a significant trove of

17
00:00:59,560 --> 00:01:03,320
Speaker 1: evidence for the houses it works through its various inquiries.

18
00:01:03,720 --> 00:01:07,560
Speaker 1: But also the law it lays down is well clearly

19
00:01:07,600 --> 00:01:11,960
Speaker 1: affirms the various precedents that applied to assertions of privilege

20
00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:15,959
Speaker 1: by the President and assertions for information by Congress, and

21
00:01:16,000 --> 00:01:19,520
Speaker 1: it comes down very strongly on the side of Congress.

22
00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:22,840
Speaker 1: So this will be an important precedent moving forward. So

23
00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:27,840
Speaker 1: Neil explain what the court decided. Briefly, The court decided

24
00:01:27,880 --> 00:01:31,640
Speaker 1: that Congress had a legitimate interest in seeing the president's

25
00:01:31,680 --> 00:01:35,760
Speaker 1: tax returns, and that if Congress has a legitimate interest,

26
00:01:35,959 --> 00:01:39,280
Speaker 1: it doesn't in any way matter that Congress may also

27
00:01:39,360 --> 00:01:44,000
Speaker 1: have political motives. So the president's objection and his accountants

28
00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:47,720
Speaker 1: objection to turning over the tax returns was that the

29
00:01:47,920 --> 00:01:52,320
Speaker 1: real reason was politics, and the court's response to that

30
00:01:52,520 --> 00:01:56,160
Speaker 1: was that Congress can have political motives as long as

31
00:01:56,200 --> 00:02:01,240
Speaker 1: it also has a legitimate legislative motive for seeking the information,

32
00:02:01,480 --> 00:02:03,800
Speaker 1: and it did in this case, and I think that

33
00:02:03,840 --> 00:02:07,280
Speaker 1: pretty clearly demonstrates that it will in all of its inquiries.

34
00:02:07,800 --> 00:02:12,640
Speaker 1: Might courts see a difference between President Trump's records as

35
00:02:12,760 --> 00:02:17,680
Speaker 1: president and personal records before his presidency. I don't think so,

36
00:02:17,760 --> 00:02:21,080
Speaker 1: not after this case, because this case involved tax returns

37
00:02:21,120 --> 00:02:24,880
Speaker 1: before Donald Trump was president and tax returns after Donald

38
00:02:24,880 --> 00:02:28,079
Speaker 1: Trump was president, and the d C. Circuit said they

39
00:02:28,080 --> 00:02:32,160
Speaker 1: are all within Congress's legitimate interests to see. It was

40
00:02:32,200 --> 00:02:34,680
Speaker 1: a two to one decision, and the judge and dissent

41
00:02:34,919 --> 00:02:38,960
Speaker 1: was Naomi Rao, a recent appointee of President Trump's. What

42
00:02:39,080 --> 00:02:43,440
Speaker 1: were her reasons for dissenting? Her dissent sure looked an

43
00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:46,119
Speaker 1: awful lot like the various press releases that have come

44
00:02:46,160 --> 00:02:48,280
Speaker 1: from the White House, And there's very little in the

45
00:02:48,280 --> 00:02:52,200
Speaker 1: way of legal precedent for her position. She simply says

46
00:02:52,440 --> 00:02:57,320
Speaker 1: Congress is motivated by attacking the president and that's not

47
00:02:57,400 --> 00:03:01,160
Speaker 1: a legitimate legislative function. And you know, she's wrong in

48
00:03:01,280 --> 00:03:04,440
Speaker 1: terms of where the cases have ever been before. I

49
00:03:04,480 --> 00:03:07,240
Speaker 1: think her opinion really is just an application to be

50
00:03:07,320 --> 00:03:09,960
Speaker 1: considered for the next opening on the Supreme Court if

51
00:03:10,000 --> 00:03:13,800
Speaker 1: Donald Trump gets to make another appointment. As a legal argument,

52
00:03:13,840 --> 00:03:17,440
Speaker 1: it's really not serious. It's interesting that even in her descent,

53
00:03:17,760 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 1: she said the House may not use the legislative power

54
00:03:20,800 --> 00:03:25,320
Speaker 1: to circumvent the protections and accountability that accompany the impeachment power.

55
00:03:25,760 --> 00:03:29,880
Speaker 1: So does that indicate that if this were an impeachment

56
00:03:29,960 --> 00:03:34,839
Speaker 1: inquiry she would have a different opinion. It indicates that,

57
00:03:34,920 --> 00:03:36,600
Speaker 1: I mean, the first problem with that is that, of

58
00:03:36,600 --> 00:03:40,320
Speaker 1: course Congress has many legitimate legislative interests in seeing the

59
00:03:40,360 --> 00:03:43,760
Speaker 1: president's tax returns. For one thing, they have a legitimate

60
00:03:43,800 --> 00:03:48,320
Speaker 1: interest in applying the Emoluments Clause right. The emoluments Clause

61
00:03:48,360 --> 00:03:54,119
Speaker 1: specifically authorizes Congress to allow for officials, including the president,

62
00:03:54,200 --> 00:03:58,960
Speaker 1: to receive emoluments in certain circumstances. Congress also has to

63
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:01,880
Speaker 1: figure out whether or not the ethics laws that apply

64
00:04:02,120 --> 00:04:06,520
Speaker 1: to executive branch officials including the president, are being enforced

65
00:04:06,560 --> 00:04:10,360
Speaker 1: properly or whether those laws need to be updated, and

66
00:04:10,400 --> 00:04:14,440
Speaker 1: seeing the president's tax returns will give them vivid illustrations

67
00:04:14,520 --> 00:04:17,960
Speaker 1: of whether or not there are holes in the ethics laws.

68
00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:22,400
Speaker 1: All of those are legitimate legislative functions, So she's wrong

69
00:04:22,560 --> 00:04:26,960
Speaker 1: to say that Congress can't offer a legitimate legislative function

70
00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:29,880
Speaker 1: and has to rely on impeachment. But I think the

71
00:04:29,920 --> 00:04:33,640
Speaker 1: answer to your question is yes. If Congress says impeachment

72
00:04:33,839 --> 00:04:38,000
Speaker 1: and now they have that, Judge Row would be required

73
00:04:38,080 --> 00:04:40,640
Speaker 1: to say, well, as long as this is related to

74
00:04:40,720 --> 00:04:45,560
Speaker 1: an impeachment inquiry, Congress can get the information. So President

75
00:04:45,560 --> 00:04:48,880
Speaker 1: Trump's lawyers could ask the full DC Appeals Court to

76
00:04:48,920 --> 00:04:52,240
Speaker 1: reconsider the ruling, which might drag things out for them,

77
00:04:52,600 --> 00:04:55,799
Speaker 1: or go straight to the Supreme Court for an emergency review.

78
00:04:56,160 --> 00:05:00,360
Speaker 1: What's the better path for Trump? Strategically has better path

79
00:05:00,520 --> 00:05:03,480
Speaker 1: is to ask the full DC Circuit court because that

80
00:05:03,560 --> 00:05:06,840
Speaker 1: delays things. If the full DC Circuit were to hear it,

81
00:05:07,120 --> 00:05:09,240
Speaker 1: then you'd have to go through the whole process of

82
00:05:09,279 --> 00:05:13,360
Speaker 1: submitting briefs, having oral arguments, then the full DC Circuit

83
00:05:13,480 --> 00:05:16,360
Speaker 1: taking time to write its opinions, and so that would

84
00:05:16,440 --> 00:05:19,640
Speaker 1: delay the matter by months, and delay I think works

85
00:05:19,640 --> 00:05:22,880
Speaker 1: in the President's favor. So I imagine that's the path

86
00:05:22,960 --> 00:05:25,760
Speaker 1: he would pick. I don't imagine the d C Circuit

87
00:05:25,800 --> 00:05:29,480
Speaker 1: would grant full on bonk review. And would the Supreme

88
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:32,800
Speaker 1: Court have to take the case? And if so, what

89
00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:35,719
Speaker 1: would the ruling be like there? So the Supreme Court

90
00:05:35,760 --> 00:05:38,640
Speaker 1: doesn't have to take the case, it could simply leave

91
00:05:39,160 --> 00:05:42,240
Speaker 1: the d C Circuit's ruling in place. And you know,

92
00:05:42,600 --> 00:05:45,240
Speaker 1: perhaps the Supreme Court would do that. And this is

93
00:05:45,279 --> 00:05:49,040
Speaker 1: certainly an interesting case. It presents issues that the Supreme

94
00:05:49,080 --> 00:05:51,920
Speaker 1: Court doesn't very often get to speak about, and there

95
00:05:51,920 --> 00:05:54,760
Speaker 1: may be some things it wants to say as a

96
00:05:54,839 --> 00:05:58,039
Speaker 1: way of putting down a marker for the rest of

97
00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:01,159
Speaker 1: the impeachment inquiry. So it Mike Well, grant the case

98
00:06:01,279 --> 00:06:04,240
Speaker 1: in order to do that. If it does, then you

99
00:06:04,240 --> 00:06:07,400
Speaker 1: know the Court can act quite expeditiously. I was just

100
00:06:07,480 --> 00:06:11,120
Speaker 1: looking back at the Watergate tapes case, and the subpoena

101
00:06:11,360 --> 00:06:15,000
Speaker 1: for the Watergate tapes was issued in April. The case

102
00:06:15,080 --> 00:06:18,120
Speaker 1: got all the way to the Supreme Court and received

103
00:06:18,160 --> 00:06:20,840
Speaker 1: an opinion from the Supreme Court in July of that

104
00:06:20,920 --> 00:06:23,480
Speaker 1: same year. So just a matter of a little under

105
00:06:23,560 --> 00:06:27,760
Speaker 1: three months the Supreme Court resolved that issue, so it

106
00:06:27,800 --> 00:06:30,360
Speaker 1: can act quickly. The subpoenas that we're talking about were

107
00:06:30,400 --> 00:06:35,240
Speaker 1: issued before the impeachment inquiry. Now Democrats have seemed reluctant

108
00:06:35,320 --> 00:06:40,279
Speaker 1: to issue subpoenas because of the problem of time. But

109
00:06:40,400 --> 00:06:43,080
Speaker 1: you think that the Supreme Court could rush them through,

110
00:06:43,120 --> 00:06:45,839
Speaker 1: then the Supreme Court can rush them through. And we

111
00:06:45,920 --> 00:06:50,719
Speaker 1: also see the House issuing subpoenas where where witnesses want them. Right,

112
00:06:50,800 --> 00:06:55,479
Speaker 1: So Ambassador Ivanovitch was told not to appear at the

113
00:06:55,560 --> 00:07:00,120
Speaker 1: house I'm hearing, and so she told the House that

114
00:07:00,279 --> 00:07:03,600
Speaker 1: she wouldn't appear unless she was subpoena and the House

115
00:07:03,720 --> 00:07:06,240
Speaker 1: very quickly issued the subpoena and it was complied with.

116
00:07:06,680 --> 00:07:08,600
Speaker 1: I think the context where the House may be a

117
00:07:08,640 --> 00:07:11,000
Speaker 1: little more reluctant is where the subpoena is going to

118
00:07:11,040 --> 00:07:15,040
Speaker 1: be challenged. Last week in New York, a federal court

119
00:07:15,200 --> 00:07:19,280
Speaker 1: judge Victor Murrero tossed Trump's lawsuit to block a subpoena

120
00:07:19,320 --> 00:07:22,760
Speaker 1: for his personal and corporate tax returns by the Manhattan

121
00:07:22,840 --> 00:07:26,400
Speaker 1: d A. It was a skating opinion. Was the reasoning

122
00:07:26,480 --> 00:07:28,520
Speaker 1: similar to what we saw from the d C Circuit

123
00:07:28,640 --> 00:07:31,600
Speaker 1: or different? Well, it was different in that the d

124
00:07:31,720 --> 00:07:35,840
Speaker 1: C circuits reasoning was far more measured, right because the

125
00:07:35,920 --> 00:07:39,920
Speaker 1: lawyers firm Mazars, President Trump's accounting firm didn't make the

126
00:07:40,000 --> 00:07:43,960
Speaker 1: kind of outlandish arguments that Trump's own lawyers made for

127
00:07:44,080 --> 00:07:47,040
Speaker 1: him in that New York case. They made them in

128
00:07:47,080 --> 00:07:49,120
Speaker 1: the d C Circuit, but the d C Circuit could

129
00:07:49,120 --> 00:07:52,720
Speaker 1: ignore them because Trump wasn't a party, right, So those

130
00:07:52,760 --> 00:07:57,320
Speaker 1: outlandish arguments are that the president is absolutely immune from

131
00:07:57,440 --> 00:08:01,920
Speaker 1: all process in court or Congress. And the judge was,

132
00:08:02,000 --> 00:08:05,360
Speaker 1: I think quite rightly dismissive of those and in fact

133
00:08:05,600 --> 00:08:09,680
Speaker 1: repudiated them so sharply, I think is a way of

134
00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:12,440
Speaker 1: signaling to the president's lawyers that they need to temper

135
00:08:12,520 --> 00:08:15,280
Speaker 1: the kinds of arguments they're making when they go before

136
00:08:15,320 --> 00:08:18,560
Speaker 1: the second circuit to argue the case. Do you think

137
00:08:18,560 --> 00:08:21,760
Speaker 1: that you'll see a more tempered argument from the president's lawyers.

138
00:08:22,360 --> 00:08:24,480
Speaker 1: It's a little hard to imagine. They seem to be

139
00:08:24,520 --> 00:08:27,720
Speaker 1: really committed to those arguments, and you know, I think

140
00:08:27,720 --> 00:08:32,080
Speaker 1: their client appreciates their over the top representation and advocacy,

141
00:08:32,559 --> 00:08:35,840
Speaker 1: and so given that dynamic, they may stick to their guns,

142
00:08:35,960 --> 00:08:39,280
Speaker 1: even though the position, as a matter of law is

143
00:08:39,360 --> 00:08:43,000
Speaker 1: completely indefensible. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law. Neil. That's

144
00:08:43,040 --> 00:08:46,280
Speaker 1: Neil Kinkoff, a professor at the Georgia State University College

145
00:08:46,280 --> 00:08:50,239
Speaker 1: of Law. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast.

146
00:08:50,600 --> 00:08:54,640
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

147
00:08:54,720 --> 00:08:58,640
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

148
00:08:59,120 --> 00:09:03,040
Speaker 1: This is Bird