1 00:00:00,520 --> 00:00:05,720 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:06,160 --> 00:00:09,200 Speaker 1: Oregon is now locked in a battle with the federal government, 3 00:00:09,560 --> 00:00:13,440 Speaker 1: suing the Department of Homeland Security and the US Marshall Service, 4 00:00:13,720 --> 00:00:18,040 Speaker 1: alleging they've overstepped their powers and threatening injuring or arresting 5 00:00:18,120 --> 00:00:22,800 Speaker 1: protesters with militarized units on the streets of Portland. Mayor 6 00:00:22,840 --> 00:00:25,560 Speaker 1: Ted Wheeler said the actions of the federal troops are 7 00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:31,040 Speaker 1: unconstitutional and he wants them to leave unmarked vehicles driving 8 00:00:31,040 --> 00:00:34,440 Speaker 1: in the crowds, pulling people off the streets without any 9 00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:37,600 Speaker 1: probable cause as far as I can tell, and the 10 00:00:37,680 --> 00:00:40,600 Speaker 1: people who are engaging in those activities aren't even willing 11 00:00:40,640 --> 00:00:43,600 Speaker 1: to identify who they are, and they don't wear insignia 12 00:00:43,680 --> 00:00:47,480 Speaker 1: on their uniforms. That's a real threat to democracy because 13 00:00:47,560 --> 00:00:51,880 Speaker 1: ultimately there's no accountability for that. But Acting Deputy Secretary 14 00:00:51,920 --> 00:00:55,920 Speaker 1: for the Department of Homeland Security Ken Cucinelli defended the 15 00:00:55,960 --> 00:00:59,840 Speaker 1: actions of federal troops and explained a video circulating of 16 00:00:59,840 --> 00:01:03,160 Speaker 1: a men being apprehended by federal troops and put into 17 00:01:03,200 --> 00:01:06,440 Speaker 1: an unmarked vehicle, Well, they determined that was not the 18 00:01:06,480 --> 00:01:09,240 Speaker 1: person who did the assault and released him, joining me 19 00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:13,080 Speaker 1: as former federal prosecutor Eli Hoenig of Lowenstein Sandler. Do 20 00:01:13,120 --> 00:01:16,440 Speaker 1: you remember another time in our history where there were 21 00:01:16,480 --> 00:01:23,039 Speaker 1: cases of unidentified federal officers in camouflage throwing people into 22 00:01:23,200 --> 00:01:26,720 Speaker 1: unmarked vans, taking them into custody, putting them in a 23 00:01:26,800 --> 00:01:31,080 Speaker 1: jail cell, questioning them, and then releasing them without any 24 00:01:31,360 --> 00:01:35,199 Speaker 1: record of their arrest. Absolutely not. And there's so much 25 00:01:35,240 --> 00:01:38,919 Speaker 1: about this that sticks out as being not just unusual, 26 00:01:39,000 --> 00:01:43,399 Speaker 1: but extraordinary and potentially extraordinarily dangerous. So let's start with this. 27 00:01:43,520 --> 00:01:46,200 Speaker 1: First of all, we don't have secret police here in 28 00:01:46,200 --> 00:01:48,480 Speaker 1: the United States. I think that's one of the core 29 00:01:48,680 --> 00:01:52,040 Speaker 1: theories that are democracy or a criminal justice system is 30 00:01:52,080 --> 00:01:54,480 Speaker 1: built on um. I think what this really is a 31 00:01:54,560 --> 00:01:57,960 Speaker 1: sort of performative law and order for some reason. There's 32 00:01:58,000 --> 00:02:01,680 Speaker 1: obviously a political mode of behind this whole song and dance, 33 00:02:01,720 --> 00:02:04,559 Speaker 1: but it's really dangerous, and I can sort of tick 34 00:02:04,680 --> 00:02:07,360 Speaker 1: through the ways. First of all, there's no such thing 35 00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:10,639 Speaker 1: as federal police in the way that people normally think 36 00:02:10,680 --> 00:02:13,560 Speaker 1: of police doing patrols. There are certainly are federal law 37 00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:17,080 Speaker 1: enforcement agents at the I being the most widely known, 38 00:02:17,080 --> 00:02:19,240 Speaker 1: but D E. A and A T S and on 39 00:02:19,400 --> 00:02:21,640 Speaker 1: down the line. US marshals who are involved in this 40 00:02:21,720 --> 00:02:25,680 Speaker 1: case DHS Homeland Security, but they do not ordinarily do 41 00:02:26,120 --> 00:02:29,440 Speaker 1: what we would think of as street patrol, crowd control, 42 00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:31,680 Speaker 1: that kind of thing, particularly if you're not dealing with 43 00:02:31,800 --> 00:02:35,440 Speaker 1: federal property. The streets of Portland are not federal property, 44 00:02:35,520 --> 00:02:38,360 Speaker 1: so let's start with that. Second, of all, most law 45 00:02:38,480 --> 00:02:41,799 Speaker 1: enforcement agencies require that unless you're talking about an officer 46 00:02:41,840 --> 00:02:44,520 Speaker 1: who's working in an undercover setting, which these guys are not. 47 00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:48,560 Speaker 1: At a minimum, the agency is identified on the uniforms, 48 00:02:48,600 --> 00:02:51,400 Speaker 1: and frequently the name of the person is identified on 49 00:02:51,440 --> 00:02:53,320 Speaker 1: the uniform. Same thing with our military, look at and 50 00:02:53,400 --> 00:02:56,600 Speaker 1: even generals have their names on their breast pockets. So 51 00:02:56,760 --> 00:02:59,280 Speaker 1: the fact that there's this level of secrecy about this 52 00:02:59,480 --> 00:03:03,200 Speaker 1: is extraordinarily alarming and I think also potentially dangerous to 53 00:03:03,600 --> 00:03:07,280 Speaker 1: citizenry and to law enforcement officers. To put this in context, 54 00:03:07,600 --> 00:03:11,640 Speaker 1: for example, early Monday, dozens of people were gathered at 55 00:03:11,639 --> 00:03:15,480 Speaker 1: the Federal building with shields and helmets and bats and 56 00:03:15,520 --> 00:03:19,520 Speaker 1: hockey sticks, and the Feds used tear gas and apparently 57 00:03:19,560 --> 00:03:23,040 Speaker 1: shut projectiles at them. Are they within their rights to 58 00:03:23,120 --> 00:03:26,880 Speaker 1: be defending the federal building in the abstract sense, Yes, 59 00:03:27,000 --> 00:03:30,639 Speaker 1: a federal building is federal property, not necessarily everything around it, 60 00:03:30,800 --> 00:03:33,920 Speaker 1: but sure, But the question is is the level of 61 00:03:34,040 --> 00:03:37,520 Speaker 1: force being used here justified by the situation. I mean, 62 00:03:37,520 --> 00:03:40,720 Speaker 1: there's been videos that have gone viral that show these 63 00:03:40,720 --> 00:03:44,840 Speaker 1: sort of mystery federal troopers using vastly excessive force on 64 00:03:44,880 --> 00:03:48,160 Speaker 1: people who pose no threat whatsoever. And when you get 65 00:03:48,200 --> 00:03:51,760 Speaker 1: into things like shooting tear gas and concussion grenades and 66 00:03:51,800 --> 00:03:54,800 Speaker 1: flares and things like that, that is on the very 67 00:03:54,840 --> 00:03:58,280 Speaker 1: aggressive side of enforcement. I mean, that is far more 68 00:03:58,400 --> 00:04:02,000 Speaker 1: than just defending and for texting a property. The other 69 00:04:02,040 --> 00:04:04,440 Speaker 1: thing that alarms me from a sort of criminal justice 70 00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:09,320 Speaker 1: and former prosecutorial standpoint is process or lack of process here. 71 00:04:09,560 --> 00:04:12,000 Speaker 1: I mean, people have a right to know who is 72 00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:14,240 Speaker 1: arresting them and what they are being charged for. And 73 00:04:14,280 --> 00:04:17,000 Speaker 1: that's for a couple of reasons. One, anyone who's charged 74 00:04:17,040 --> 00:04:19,159 Speaker 1: with a crime has the right to challenge the arrest, 75 00:04:19,240 --> 00:04:21,640 Speaker 1: and you need to know who you're being arrested by. 76 00:04:22,120 --> 00:04:24,559 Speaker 1: And two is, in order to make a federal arrest, 77 00:04:24,760 --> 00:04:27,120 Speaker 1: you need probable cause. And there are a couple of 78 00:04:27,160 --> 00:04:30,279 Speaker 1: ways to establish probable cause. You can go to a judge, 79 00:04:30,600 --> 00:04:32,960 Speaker 1: you can go to a grand jury, or if an 80 00:04:32,960 --> 00:04:36,359 Speaker 1: officer sees a crime committed right in front of his eyes. 81 00:04:36,440 --> 00:04:39,320 Speaker 1: Those are the three ways. But just randomly picking up 82 00:04:39,320 --> 00:04:42,160 Speaker 1: protesters and throwing them into cars and then releasing them 83 00:04:42,160 --> 00:04:45,800 Speaker 1: without charges is completely against the way our system works. 84 00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:49,359 Speaker 1: The New Year of Times got ahold of uh memo 85 00:04:49,720 --> 00:04:52,479 Speaker 1: of the Department of Homeland Security that said that these 86 00:04:52,520 --> 00:04:56,040 Speaker 1: people have not been trained in this crowd control. That 87 00:04:56,160 --> 00:04:59,520 Speaker 1: lack of training is a serious concern because crowd control 88 00:04:59,640 --> 00:05:02,800 Speaker 1: is not just something that an officer can into it 89 00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:05,120 Speaker 1: that that you just sort of automatically. No, it's not 90 00:05:05,279 --> 00:05:08,719 Speaker 1: common sense. You need specialized training to learn how to 91 00:05:08,760 --> 00:05:11,680 Speaker 1: manage a crowd without escalating that crowd. Right that the 92 00:05:11,720 --> 00:05:14,640 Speaker 1: real job of a good police officer is de escalation, 93 00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:18,120 Speaker 1: taking the temperature down, not rilling things up. And if 94 00:05:18,160 --> 00:05:20,160 Speaker 1: you watch what's happening, I think you can see that 95 00:05:20,240 --> 00:05:22,440 Speaker 1: lack of training. I also want to point out another 96 00:05:22,480 --> 00:05:25,520 Speaker 1: potential danger here, which is people need to know which 97 00:05:25,560 --> 00:05:28,799 Speaker 1: officers are real. I mean, there is a federal crime 98 00:05:28,839 --> 00:05:31,800 Speaker 1: of impersonating a law enforcement officer. I'm not suggesting these 99 00:05:31,800 --> 00:05:34,279 Speaker 1: people are, but if someone wanted to go down to 100 00:05:34,279 --> 00:05:36,599 Speaker 1: the Army Navy store buy some surplus and slap a 101 00:05:36,640 --> 00:05:39,720 Speaker 1: police badge on there. Who's going to know the difference. 102 00:05:39,720 --> 00:05:41,440 Speaker 1: And the last thing that I want to say that 103 00:05:41,520 --> 00:05:43,520 Speaker 1: goes to an issue of danger is what law enforcement 104 00:05:43,520 --> 00:05:48,000 Speaker 1: officers called deconfliction. Whatever you have law enforcement officials who 105 00:05:48,040 --> 00:05:50,360 Speaker 1: may cross path, then it happens all the time. Maybe 106 00:05:50,360 --> 00:05:53,360 Speaker 1: there's local police in an area where the federal FBI, 107 00:05:53,480 --> 00:05:55,440 Speaker 1: let's say, is going to be doing a search for it. 108 00:05:55,640 --> 00:05:57,520 Speaker 1: You need to give everyone a heads up say hey, 109 00:05:57,600 --> 00:06:00,360 Speaker 1: we're gonna be in your area where cops don't shoot. 110 00:06:00,440 --> 00:06:02,960 Speaker 1: We're not breaking into a house. It's not a robbery. 111 00:06:03,160 --> 00:06:05,000 Speaker 1: And so if you have law enforce from officers who 112 00:06:05,000 --> 00:06:08,200 Speaker 1: are off the record and unidentifiable, that poses a risk 113 00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:11,520 Speaker 1: to those officers and to other law enforcement officers in 114 00:06:11,680 --> 00:06:16,640 Speaker 1: are coming up next Oregon's lawsuit. I've been talking to 115 00:06:16,720 --> 00:06:20,919 Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor Ali Hoenig about Oregon suing the US 116 00:06:20,920 --> 00:06:25,400 Speaker 1: over the attention of residents during anti racism protests in Portland, 117 00:06:25,800 --> 00:06:29,200 Speaker 1: shortly after a judge rule that journalist alleging local police 118 00:06:29,240 --> 00:06:33,000 Speaker 1: had assaulted them could add federal agents to their own lawsuits. 119 00:06:33,560 --> 00:06:36,799 Speaker 1: In the States, lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security 120 00:06:36,800 --> 00:06:40,400 Speaker 1: in the U. S. Marshal Service. The Attorney General alleges 121 00:06:40,440 --> 00:06:45,040 Speaker 1: they've overstepped their powers in threatening, injuring, or arresting protesters. 122 00:06:45,560 --> 00:06:48,880 Speaker 1: In its lawsuit, Oregon sided two incidents it says took 123 00:06:48,880 --> 00:06:52,839 Speaker 1: place in the past week. A peaceful protester was allegedly 124 00:06:52,920 --> 00:06:56,040 Speaker 1: struck in the head with an impact weapon and sustained 125 00:06:56,080 --> 00:07:00,760 Speaker 1: severe injuries, and an unmarked minivan with undercover federal agents 126 00:07:00,800 --> 00:07:05,760 Speaker 1: wearing generic green military fatigues allegedly forcibly detained a second 127 00:07:05,760 --> 00:07:09,320 Speaker 1: protester who was later released. Elly tell us about the 128 00:07:09,400 --> 00:07:12,440 Speaker 1: grounds of the lawsuit by the Oregon A G. Yeah, 129 00:07:12,520 --> 00:07:15,560 Speaker 1: so there's several lawsuits here, but essentially the essence of 130 00:07:15,600 --> 00:07:20,160 Speaker 1: the the Oregan Ages lawsuit is that these secret police 131 00:07:20,320 --> 00:07:25,320 Speaker 1: are unlawfully arresting and detaining people, meaning without probable cause, 132 00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:29,280 Speaker 1: without proper due process and documentation. And again that I mean, 133 00:07:29,720 --> 00:07:33,920 Speaker 1: this is core Bill of rights constitutional stuff that you 134 00:07:33,960 --> 00:07:37,120 Speaker 1: are entitled to be advised of the charges against you, 135 00:07:37,120 --> 00:07:40,320 Speaker 1: you are entitled to have council appointed, you are entitled 136 00:07:40,320 --> 00:07:42,560 Speaker 1: to defend yourself. You're entitled to enter a plea of 137 00:07:43,000 --> 00:07:46,560 Speaker 1: or not guilty. I mean, all of that is being violated. 138 00:07:46,640 --> 00:07:49,080 Speaker 1: So that's the essence of the AGES lawsuits. There's also 139 00:07:49,160 --> 00:07:51,840 Speaker 1: a separate lawsuit that's been filed by the a c 140 00:07:52,120 --> 00:07:56,600 Speaker 1: l U complaining about restraints and limits, um and intimidation 141 00:07:56,640 --> 00:08:00,840 Speaker 1: tactics being directed at the media and at other official 142 00:08:00,960 --> 00:08:04,720 Speaker 1: observers from law enforcement or from other sort of governmental 143 00:08:04,840 --> 00:08:07,120 Speaker 1: entities that are trying to figure out what's happening there. 144 00:08:07,480 --> 00:08:10,800 Speaker 1: So I and the U. S Attorney, who is the 145 00:08:10,840 --> 00:08:15,520 Speaker 1: chief federal prosecutor for the district, also has requested an 146 00:08:15,560 --> 00:08:18,200 Speaker 1: investigation and assistance. So I think it's a good thing 147 00:08:18,240 --> 00:08:20,040 Speaker 1: that a lot of different people, coming from a lot 148 00:08:20,120 --> 00:08:23,320 Speaker 1: of different levels of government and from outside government are 149 00:08:23,400 --> 00:08:27,320 Speaker 1: raising flags here. Suppose the judge, in let's take the 150 00:08:27,400 --> 00:08:32,720 Speaker 1: AGES lawsuits, suppose the judge issues a preliminary injunction against 151 00:08:32,800 --> 00:08:36,480 Speaker 1: the FEDS. Who's going to enforce that right? Well, I 152 00:08:36,520 --> 00:08:38,040 Speaker 1: think the answer is it would It would fall to 153 00:08:38,200 --> 00:08:41,320 Speaker 1: either the a G or the individual whose rights were violated. 154 00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:44,720 Speaker 1: But violating an injunction from the federal judges is very 155 00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:48,120 Speaker 1: serious business. I mean that could be to contempt findings, 156 00:08:48,160 --> 00:08:50,719 Speaker 1: which can be there is a criminal form of contempt. 157 00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:53,640 Speaker 1: So if it gets to that point, then we're talking 158 00:08:53,960 --> 00:08:57,360 Speaker 1: real lawlessness. But but there there could be real consequences 159 00:08:57,400 --> 00:09:01,120 Speaker 1: for people who violate such an order. The President has 160 00:09:01,160 --> 00:09:05,360 Speaker 1: said that he sent troops in because it was obvious 161 00:09:05,400 --> 00:09:08,760 Speaker 1: that the Oregon couldn't take care of its its own problems. 162 00:09:09,360 --> 00:09:13,839 Speaker 1: When it comes to the president's power versus the power 163 00:09:13,880 --> 00:09:16,560 Speaker 1: of city and state officials who have said we don't 164 00:09:16,559 --> 00:09:19,000 Speaker 1: want you here. In fact, the mayor said please leave. 165 00:09:19,520 --> 00:09:22,440 Speaker 1: Does the president have the authority to send troops in. 166 00:09:23,320 --> 00:09:27,600 Speaker 1: The president does have fairly broad not fairly very broad 167 00:09:27,640 --> 00:09:32,360 Speaker 1: authority to deploy federal troops. Now, look, there's an important 168 00:09:32,520 --> 00:09:36,760 Speaker 1: distinction here. The president cannot deploy the military, and it 169 00:09:36,760 --> 00:09:39,160 Speaker 1: doesn't appear these people are military, even though their dressed 170 00:09:39,280 --> 00:09:44,200 Speaker 1: military style. Cannot deploy the military to perform law enforcement functions, 171 00:09:44,200 --> 00:09:47,520 Speaker 1: that's against the law. But that the president can deploy 172 00:09:47,520 --> 00:09:50,560 Speaker 1: the military to keep order, and he can deploy federal 173 00:09:50,640 --> 00:09:55,320 Speaker 1: law enforcement to perform law enforcement functions really um very 174 00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:58,320 Speaker 1: very broadly. Any and while one way to do that 175 00:09:58,440 --> 00:10:00,960 Speaker 1: is upon request from a governor, he doesn't need a 176 00:10:00,960 --> 00:10:02,960 Speaker 1: request from a duffer. I mean think back the Little 177 00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:05,600 Speaker 1: Rock for example, with the civil rights movement, president sent 178 00:10:05,640 --> 00:10:10,480 Speaker 1: in the National Guard against the wishes of segregation governors. UM, So, look, 179 00:10:10,559 --> 00:10:13,200 Speaker 1: there's a legitimate question to hear about whether the president 180 00:10:13,280 --> 00:10:15,600 Speaker 1: should be doing this and whether it's necessary. I think 181 00:10:15,640 --> 00:10:18,360 Speaker 1: it's clearly not necessary. I think it's largely for show. 182 00:10:18,400 --> 00:10:20,680 Speaker 1: And like you said, the leaders of the area have 183 00:10:20,920 --> 00:10:23,400 Speaker 1: asked the President not to send people in. But but 184 00:10:23,520 --> 00:10:27,800 Speaker 1: legally he does have fairly broad discretion to deploy federal 185 00:10:28,240 --> 00:10:31,880 Speaker 1: agents in this case. The federal response has been that 186 00:10:32,200 --> 00:10:37,280 Speaker 1: we're protecting federal buildings and federal officers. So as long 187 00:10:37,320 --> 00:10:41,360 Speaker 1: as they're you know, within the building parameters, are they 188 00:10:41,400 --> 00:10:44,800 Speaker 1: properly there? But once I go into the streets, does 189 00:10:44,840 --> 00:10:48,360 Speaker 1: that then start to raise questions. I have no problem 190 00:10:48,400 --> 00:10:52,679 Speaker 1: with defending and protecting federal buildings, federal property, federal assets, 191 00:10:52,679 --> 00:10:55,480 Speaker 1: and there's an argument that a certain area of the 192 00:10:55,559 --> 00:10:58,280 Speaker 1: sort of vicinage around the building is included in that. 193 00:10:58,720 --> 00:11:01,720 Speaker 1: But if you're going to do that, do it right, 194 00:11:01,880 --> 00:11:04,440 Speaker 1: do it lawfully, do it transparently. Do it the way 195 00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:07,920 Speaker 1: that virtually all law enforcement functions in this country, which 196 00:11:08,000 --> 00:11:13,000 Speaker 1: is a identify yourself, what agency you're representing, and preferably 197 00:11:13,120 --> 00:11:17,000 Speaker 1: your name, uh be only make a rest if you 198 00:11:17,080 --> 00:11:20,560 Speaker 1: have established probable cause through a judge through a grand 199 00:11:20,600 --> 00:11:25,080 Speaker 1: jury or through directly observing an obvious crime rate in 200 00:11:25,120 --> 00:11:27,760 Speaker 1: front of you, and then see give people who you 201 00:11:27,880 --> 00:11:31,560 Speaker 1: arrest their due process. They are entitled legally to be 202 00:11:31,960 --> 00:11:34,600 Speaker 1: advised of the charges against them, to make appearance in court, 203 00:11:34,640 --> 00:11:39,080 Speaker 1: to have counsel appointed, etcetera. So saying that well, we're 204 00:11:39,120 --> 00:11:42,600 Speaker 1: just here defending federal assets is fine, but it doesn't 205 00:11:42,640 --> 00:11:47,080 Speaker 1: excuse anything in the world being done in order to 206 00:11:47,200 --> 00:11:49,480 Speaker 1: achieve that. You still have to play by the rules 207 00:11:49,559 --> 00:11:54,720 Speaker 1: in defending those federal properties and assets. This might end 208 00:11:55,000 --> 00:11:58,240 Speaker 1: before these lawsuits actually find their way through the courts. 209 00:11:58,360 --> 00:12:01,839 Speaker 1: Is the Oregon a G also asking for damages. I 210 00:12:02,080 --> 00:12:05,719 Speaker 1: don't see a request for monetary damages. I think that 211 00:12:05,760 --> 00:12:09,439 Speaker 1: would be hard to prove on a statewide level that 212 00:12:09,559 --> 00:12:12,679 Speaker 1: the a G represents. But I look, I think individuals 213 00:12:12,720 --> 00:12:14,800 Speaker 1: who have been wrongly detained, if they can show that, 214 00:12:14,920 --> 00:12:18,960 Speaker 1: absolutely would have a potential lawsuit for damages against the 215 00:12:19,000 --> 00:12:21,200 Speaker 1: federal government. I mean, if somebody can show their rights 216 00:12:21,200 --> 00:12:24,080 Speaker 1: were violated, they were wrongly taken into custody, they were 217 00:12:24,080 --> 00:12:28,080 Speaker 1: wrongly arrested, apprehended, their absolutely could be a civil suit 218 00:12:28,160 --> 00:12:30,880 Speaker 1: for monetary damages there and we should also point out 219 00:12:30,920 --> 00:12:36,000 Speaker 1: that local authorities are also doing criminal investigations into some 220 00:12:36,080 --> 00:12:39,160 Speaker 1: of these incidents. For example, there was a lot of 221 00:12:39,240 --> 00:12:42,840 Speaker 1: video of former Navy civil engineer who was beaten with 222 00:12:42,880 --> 00:12:46,160 Speaker 1: a baton and pepper sprays, so those are also going 223 00:12:46,200 --> 00:12:49,520 Speaker 1: on at the same time. Yeah, yeah, what criminal law 224 00:12:49,640 --> 00:12:52,480 Speaker 1: needs to prevail here, I would say, um, in a 225 00:12:52,480 --> 00:12:56,559 Speaker 1: couple of respects. First of all, if protesters are genuinely 226 00:12:56,640 --> 00:13:01,480 Speaker 1: committing crimes assaults, uh, destruy action of property, then those 227 00:13:01,520 --> 00:13:06,240 Speaker 1: crimes need to be investigated and prosecuted in accordance with 228 00:13:06,400 --> 00:13:11,840 Speaker 1: the law and do process. But certainly if these camouflaged 229 00:13:12,480 --> 00:13:17,280 Speaker 1: federal troops or agents are committing crimes, are using unjustified 230 00:13:17,360 --> 00:13:20,480 Speaker 1: levels of force, then they can be charged with assaults 231 00:13:20,480 --> 00:13:23,840 Speaker 1: as well. I mean, there's no immunity from criminal charges 232 00:13:23,920 --> 00:13:27,760 Speaker 1: for police officers or law enforcement aidens who use excessive force. 233 00:13:27,800 --> 00:13:30,200 Speaker 1: There is this thing called qualified immunity which is now 234 00:13:30,520 --> 00:13:34,320 Speaker 1: become a controversial notion, which says that a federal law 235 00:13:34,440 --> 00:13:38,440 Speaker 1: enforcement officer cannot be sued civilly for money damages in 236 00:13:38,520 --> 00:13:42,920 Speaker 1: his personal capacity. But you absolutely are subject to potential 237 00:13:42,920 --> 00:13:47,040 Speaker 1: criminal charges if you use excessive force or assault somebody. Um, 238 00:13:47,160 --> 00:13:51,920 Speaker 1: without justification. Thanks Eli. That's former federal prosecutor Elie Honig 239 00:13:51,920 --> 00:13:55,520 Speaker 1: of Lowenstein Sandler. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. 240 00:13:55,800 --> 00:13:59,240 Speaker 1: The legal battle over the subtoinas for President Trump's financial 241 00:13:59,320 --> 00:14:03,079 Speaker 1: records goes on. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg. 242 00:14:11,280 --> 00:14:14,120 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has already ruled on the grand jury 243 00:14:14,240 --> 00:14:18,560 Speaker 1: subpoena and congressional subpoenas for President Trump's financial records, but 244 00:14:18,640 --> 00:14:21,880 Speaker 1: the legal battle is far from over its return to 245 00:14:21,920 --> 00:14:25,320 Speaker 1: the lower courts. The Supreme Court has cleared the way 246 00:14:25,360 --> 00:14:27,600 Speaker 1: for the lower courts to move ahead in the clash 247 00:14:27,680 --> 00:14:31,600 Speaker 1: over the grand jury subpoena. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vans 248 00:14:31,640 --> 00:14:34,880 Speaker 1: had asked the justices not to wait twenty five plus days, 249 00:14:35,120 --> 00:14:38,440 Speaker 1: as they normally do after issuing an opinion. The court 250 00:14:38,480 --> 00:14:42,320 Speaker 1: had rejected Trump's claim of sweeping immunity, while leaving open 251 00:14:42,400 --> 00:14:45,680 Speaker 1: the possibility he could raise more specific objections in the 252 00:14:45,720 --> 00:14:49,800 Speaker 1: lower courts, and Trump is doing just that. Joining me 253 00:14:49,880 --> 00:14:52,560 Speaker 1: is Harold crant, A, professor of the Chicago Kent College 254 00:14:52,600 --> 00:14:56,960 Speaker 1: of Law. This seems to be moving fast, how fast 255 00:14:57,320 --> 00:15:02,240 Speaker 1: compared to other cases Courts typically waits the twenty five 256 00:15:02,320 --> 00:15:05,480 Speaker 1: days or so to issue a mandate or issue in 257 00:15:05,680 --> 00:15:09,960 Speaker 1: order to lower court to resume jurisdiction over a case 258 00:15:10,080 --> 00:15:13,840 Speaker 1: once it's been decided by the Supreme Court. Here, uh, 259 00:15:14,000 --> 00:15:17,240 Speaker 1: the District Attorney of New York advance decided to ask 260 00:15:17,280 --> 00:15:20,480 Speaker 1: for the case to be returned to New York more 261 00:15:20,560 --> 00:15:23,520 Speaker 1: quickly than that in order to get the whole controversy 262 00:15:24,080 --> 00:15:28,200 Speaker 1: of Trump's taxes before the court again to move with 263 00:15:28,240 --> 00:15:32,160 Speaker 1: their case along. And the Supreme Court agreed, largely because 264 00:15:32,520 --> 00:15:37,200 Speaker 1: Trump's attorneys evidently acquiesced. But still we're going to have 265 00:15:37,360 --> 00:15:41,360 Speaker 1: at least one more round of litigation, at least in 266 00:15:41,400 --> 00:15:45,800 Speaker 1: the New York Federal Court, because Trump's attorney has said 267 00:15:45,800 --> 00:15:50,920 Speaker 1: that he's goes claimed probably that this is a phishing expedition, 268 00:15:51,520 --> 00:15:56,800 Speaker 1: it's the intent to harass um the president um and 269 00:15:56,960 --> 00:16:01,720 Speaker 1: that indeed the subpoena for taxes is too broad. So 270 00:16:02,080 --> 00:16:04,760 Speaker 1: they will have to be a hearing on those queens 271 00:16:05,360 --> 00:16:08,800 Speaker 1: probably at some point in August. It was surprising to 272 00:16:08,880 --> 00:16:13,520 Speaker 1: me that Trump's lawyers didn't fight the speeding up of 273 00:16:13,560 --> 00:16:15,720 Speaker 1: the case. They agreed to it, and that was a 274 00:16:15,720 --> 00:16:19,000 Speaker 1: big part of why Justice Roberts let it go forward. 275 00:16:19,360 --> 00:16:21,760 Speaker 1: If they're fighting this too, then, noww why would they 276 00:16:21,800 --> 00:16:25,520 Speaker 1: agree to move it along quicker? The question crossed my 277 00:16:25,600 --> 00:16:28,800 Speaker 1: mind as well, and my only speculation is that the 278 00:16:29,120 --> 00:16:32,280 Speaker 1: attorney did not want to take off the Supreme Court 279 00:16:32,280 --> 00:16:36,160 Speaker 1: anymore because it's a chance at this case, in some 280 00:16:36,240 --> 00:16:39,760 Speaker 1: form or other, whether a contempt or direct appeal may 281 00:16:39,800 --> 00:16:42,400 Speaker 1: find its way back to the the Supreme Court a second time. 282 00:16:42,880 --> 00:16:46,440 Speaker 1: This is the case involving the subpoena from the New 283 00:16:46,520 --> 00:16:51,080 Speaker 1: York Grand Jury Prosecutor Cyrus Vance's office. Remind us what 284 00:16:51,160 --> 00:16:55,520 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court said about President Trump being in nearly 285 00:16:55,600 --> 00:16:59,800 Speaker 1: the same situation as any other person with regard to 286 00:16:59,840 --> 00:17:04,400 Speaker 1: the subpoena. So the Court first held, and most importantly, 287 00:17:04,440 --> 00:17:07,280 Speaker 1: that the president is not above the law, that the 288 00:17:07,359 --> 00:17:10,640 Speaker 1: president does not have a complete immunity from civil process 289 00:17:10,680 --> 00:17:14,720 Speaker 1: or from criminal process for that matter, while he's in office, 290 00:17:15,080 --> 00:17:18,440 Speaker 1: and that that's true with respect to a subpoena from 291 00:17:18,560 --> 00:17:21,560 Speaker 1: a state investigatory agency, as it would be from a 292 00:17:21,600 --> 00:17:25,920 Speaker 1: federal investigatory agency. But and so holding, the Court did 293 00:17:25,960 --> 00:17:29,359 Speaker 1: say that the president should have the opportunity to contest 294 00:17:29,880 --> 00:17:33,280 Speaker 1: the subpoena on grounds, first of all, available to anybody else, 295 00:17:33,359 --> 00:17:36,080 Speaker 1: such as sects too broad, but also on the grounds 296 00:17:36,080 --> 00:17:40,400 Speaker 1: that somehow the subpoena will interfere with the president's conduct 297 00:17:40,520 --> 00:17:45,439 Speaker 1: us his constitutional office of presidency um. In this case, 298 00:17:46,080 --> 00:17:49,720 Speaker 1: uh the Trump's attorney Secolo has suggested that there may 299 00:17:49,760 --> 00:17:54,760 Speaker 1: be some valid reasons for challenging subpoena. I mean, I 300 00:17:54,800 --> 00:17:58,480 Speaker 1: think most of us think that they're frivoleates um. But 301 00:17:58,600 --> 00:18:01,720 Speaker 1: there may be one claim that has a bit of mirror, 302 00:18:01,800 --> 00:18:04,119 Speaker 1: which is the fact that they've looked for I believe, 303 00:18:04,359 --> 00:18:07,280 Speaker 1: eight years of tax returns and if the grand jury 304 00:18:07,359 --> 00:18:11,159 Speaker 1: is really focusing merely on the hush money paid to 305 00:18:11,920 --> 00:18:16,320 Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels by Michael Cone, which was the thesis, that's 306 00:18:16,480 --> 00:18:19,880 Speaker 1: a one or two year process of looking at the taxes, 307 00:18:20,200 --> 00:18:22,119 Speaker 1: if not an eight year But these are the kinds 308 00:18:22,160 --> 00:18:27,000 Speaker 1: of issues that will be resolved relatively expeditiously by the 309 00:18:27,119 --> 00:18:30,399 Speaker 1: cord upon reman from the Supreme Court. That was the 310 00:18:30,480 --> 00:18:32,960 Speaker 1: argument that I thought carried the most weight, that the 311 00:18:33,040 --> 00:18:37,960 Speaker 1: scope of the subpoena was overbroad, and President Trump's attorney 312 00:18:38,080 --> 00:18:42,400 Speaker 1: said that the d A just copied the congressional subpoenas. 313 00:18:42,760 --> 00:18:45,479 Speaker 1: Do you think that's their strongest argument. I do think 314 00:18:45,520 --> 00:18:49,000 Speaker 1: that the strongest argument is the question of scope of 315 00:18:49,040 --> 00:18:52,520 Speaker 1: the subpoena. But we don't know exactly what the grand 316 00:18:52,560 --> 00:18:55,000 Speaker 1: jury is investigating. If the grand jury is only investigating 317 00:18:55,040 --> 00:18:58,960 Speaker 1: hush money, obviously that would be triggered with respect to 318 00:18:59,480 --> 00:19:04,600 Speaker 1: the Camp Hayne because that's when evidently President Trump paid 319 00:19:04,640 --> 00:19:07,040 Speaker 1: this money and then tried to claim the deduction for 320 00:19:07,160 --> 00:19:10,440 Speaker 1: it as a legitimate expense. But on the other hand, 321 00:19:10,480 --> 00:19:14,160 Speaker 1: maybe the grand jury has investigated a pattern of these payments. 322 00:19:14,280 --> 00:19:17,560 Speaker 1: Maybe the grand jury has investigated some other kind of 323 00:19:17,560 --> 00:19:22,040 Speaker 1: financial impropriety with respect to the campaign, and so needs 324 00:19:22,040 --> 00:19:25,040 Speaker 1: to look at a couple more years of cash returns. 325 00:19:25,080 --> 00:19:28,320 Speaker 1: But I do think it's questionable of where this eight 326 00:19:28,440 --> 00:19:31,800 Speaker 1: year of cash returns came up. They came up with, 327 00:19:32,040 --> 00:19:34,840 Speaker 1: and that may not be directly linked to the investigation 328 00:19:34,880 --> 00:19:39,600 Speaker 1: that they're undertaking. You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June 329 00:19:39,640 --> 00:19:43,639 Speaker 1: Grazzo from Bloomberg Radio. I've been talking to Harold Branch, 330 00:19:43,760 --> 00:19:46,760 Speaker 1: professor at the Chicago Camp College of Law, about the 331 00:19:46,800 --> 00:19:49,679 Speaker 1: Supreme Court clearing the lower courts to move ahead in 332 00:19:49,720 --> 00:19:52,800 Speaker 1: a clash over a grand jury subpinia for President Trump's 333 00:19:52,840 --> 00:19:57,920 Speaker 1: financial records. From the Manhattan District Attorney Trump's attorneys want 334 00:19:58,080 --> 00:20:03,000 Speaker 1: more information about the injury investigation. Grand Jury investigations are 335 00:20:03,040 --> 00:20:06,040 Speaker 1: supposed to be secret. Would the judge allow them to 336 00:20:06,080 --> 00:20:08,960 Speaker 1: get more information? I doubt it. I mean, I think 337 00:20:08,960 --> 00:20:12,479 Speaker 1: the argument by Trump's attorney is that how do we 338 00:20:12,560 --> 00:20:16,840 Speaker 1: know if this is a legitimate investigation and not for 339 00:20:16,880 --> 00:20:21,080 Speaker 1: harassment unless we know what the focus of the investigation is. Now, 340 00:20:21,080 --> 00:20:26,600 Speaker 1: there are some alternatives here, and for instance, the Advance 341 00:20:26,680 --> 00:20:32,480 Speaker 1: could give a overview of the investigation in camera, meaning 342 00:20:32,520 --> 00:20:35,880 Speaker 1: in secret, to the presiding judge and in that way 343 00:20:36,040 --> 00:20:39,439 Speaker 1: satisfy the judge that this is not a frivolous or 344 00:20:39,520 --> 00:20:44,280 Speaker 1: vexatious attempt to get information about the president. That's a possibility, 345 00:20:44,880 --> 00:20:48,560 Speaker 1: So there is. It is extremely rare that someone would 346 00:20:48,560 --> 00:20:50,800 Speaker 1: have the right to know what the grand jury is 347 00:20:50,840 --> 00:20:54,280 Speaker 1: looking into. But there is a kind of kernel here 348 00:20:54,840 --> 00:20:58,480 Speaker 1: formed by uh by President fromp lawyers that suggest that 349 00:20:58,880 --> 00:21:01,480 Speaker 1: if you know, we need to have some baseline to 350 00:21:01,640 --> 00:21:06,160 Speaker 1: hold that this investigation is not purely for harassment. And 351 00:21:06,200 --> 00:21:09,960 Speaker 1: if that's true, then the question is what will Vance 352 00:21:10,000 --> 00:21:13,560 Speaker 1: be willing to say public or will he be willing 353 00:21:13,600 --> 00:21:18,280 Speaker 1: to tell the judge again in private? Um what the 354 00:21:18,280 --> 00:21:22,680 Speaker 1: injury generally is looking into now that remains to be seen. 355 00:21:23,880 --> 00:21:27,919 Speaker 1: Trump's attorneys also indicated that they are going to raise 356 00:21:28,440 --> 00:21:32,240 Speaker 1: the claim that there is a political motivation behind the subpoena, 357 00:21:32,280 --> 00:21:35,919 Speaker 1: is a desire to harass the president. But this judge 358 00:21:36,000 --> 00:21:40,479 Speaker 1: previously found the subpoena to be proper, and he asked 359 00:21:40,520 --> 00:21:43,280 Speaker 1: them whether there were any new facts or different facts 360 00:21:43,359 --> 00:21:46,840 Speaker 1: to suggest the investigation was in bad faith. Does it 361 00:21:46,920 --> 00:21:49,640 Speaker 1: seem likely that the judge is just going to affirm 362 00:21:49,800 --> 00:21:53,080 Speaker 1: his prior ruling. Yeah. The argument that this is purely 363 00:21:53,119 --> 00:21:56,359 Speaker 1: a frivolous investigation on the on behalf of the New 364 00:21:56,400 --> 00:22:00,400 Speaker 1: York authorities is already been raised. It's already been rejected. Um. 365 00:22:00,440 --> 00:22:02,320 Speaker 1: And I think from what we know, just in terms 366 00:22:02,359 --> 00:22:05,320 Speaker 1: of the payment to the hushmoney to Stormy Daniels, that 367 00:22:05,400 --> 00:22:08,879 Speaker 1: itself suggests that there is a good faith basis for 368 00:22:08,920 --> 00:22:11,639 Speaker 1: this investigation, and again it might be proper. We simply 369 00:22:11,720 --> 00:22:15,560 Speaker 1: don't know. I think the only claim really that that 370 00:22:15,600 --> 00:22:17,920 Speaker 1: the Trump's attorney has that may have a little some 371 00:22:18,119 --> 00:22:21,359 Speaker 1: merrita is narrowing down the subpoena to show that there's 372 00:22:21,359 --> 00:22:25,679 Speaker 1: at least some relevance or some connection between the years 373 00:22:25,760 --> 00:22:30,840 Speaker 1: of tax material sought and the scope of the investigation. 374 00:22:31,080 --> 00:22:34,040 Speaker 1: But that being said, we simply don't know how broad 375 00:22:34,080 --> 00:22:37,320 Speaker 1: the investigation is right now, and there may be other 376 00:22:37,440 --> 00:22:41,040 Speaker 1: things that are being swept within the sites of the 377 00:22:41,160 --> 00:22:46,080 Speaker 1: prosecutors in New York. Trump's attorneys mentioned an argument that 378 00:22:46,119 --> 00:22:49,399 Speaker 1: it would interfere with his constitutional duties. But didn't the 379 00:22:49,440 --> 00:22:52,800 Speaker 1: Supreme Court take that argument away from the president by 380 00:22:52,840 --> 00:22:56,040 Speaker 1: saying he should be treated as any other person would be. 381 00:22:56,760 --> 00:23:00,040 Speaker 1: I think that the Supreme Court let a small, a 382 00:23:00,200 --> 00:23:03,800 Speaker 1: very narrow outlet show that if there's something not in general, 383 00:23:04,600 --> 00:23:08,040 Speaker 1: that in general that an investigation would interfere with the 384 00:23:08,040 --> 00:23:11,480 Speaker 1: president's conduct of its constitutional responsibilities, but there was something 385 00:23:11,720 --> 00:23:17,919 Speaker 1: particular or unique about an investigation which would undermine or 386 00:23:18,040 --> 00:23:22,959 Speaker 1: frustrate president's ability to lead. There has been nothing suggested 387 00:23:23,080 --> 00:23:26,840 Speaker 1: here whatsoever, and it's impossible to understand how it could 388 00:23:27,280 --> 00:23:31,320 Speaker 1: given that these it's not this tax information is being 389 00:23:31,320 --> 00:23:36,440 Speaker 1: held by the accountant. It causes no duties on Trump 390 00:23:37,359 --> 00:23:41,280 Speaker 1: at all. And indeed, Trump previously promised he would reveal 391 00:23:41,680 --> 00:23:45,320 Speaker 1: the text um information to the public. He was nicked 392 00:23:45,320 --> 00:23:49,560 Speaker 1: on that um. But but it's unbelievable to think that 393 00:23:49,640 --> 00:23:54,440 Speaker 1: there could be a valid claim here that the release 394 00:23:54,520 --> 00:23:58,280 Speaker 1: of the tax materials would frustrate the president's ability to 395 00:23:58,359 --> 00:24:01,960 Speaker 1: lead the country. During a court hearing, the d A 396 00:24:02,160 --> 00:24:06,000 Speaker 1: said that the longer Trump fights, the higher the chance 397 00:24:06,280 --> 00:24:10,120 Speaker 1: that the statute of limitations will expire. Let's not let 398 00:24:10,240 --> 00:24:14,160 Speaker 1: delay kill this case. Yeah, there is a statue limitations here. 399 00:24:14,280 --> 00:24:16,320 Speaker 1: It's a little bit unclear for which crimes because there 400 00:24:16,320 --> 00:24:19,840 Speaker 1: are different setual limitations. Um. And what that leads to. 401 00:24:19,880 --> 00:24:23,480 Speaker 1: The interesting question though, is whether one a sitting president 402 00:24:23,560 --> 00:24:26,359 Speaker 1: can be indicted. We've never had a sitting president be 403 00:24:26,400 --> 00:24:29,520 Speaker 1: indicted before. The Department of Justice has come out on 404 00:24:29,560 --> 00:24:33,120 Speaker 1: several prior occasions and the wake of the Nixon investigation 405 00:24:33,160 --> 00:24:36,560 Speaker 1: and the Clinton investigation and said that one can a 406 00:24:36,720 --> 00:24:40,640 Speaker 1: sitting president cannot be indicted. Um. And it makes sense 407 00:24:40,640 --> 00:24:43,240 Speaker 1: that if you're worried about a statue of limitation, you 408 00:24:43,400 --> 00:24:47,399 Speaker 1: at least see in at least indict the president under seal. 409 00:24:47,720 --> 00:24:49,919 Speaker 1: So we may be in stage because of this New 410 00:24:49,960 --> 00:24:53,840 Speaker 1: York case into another constitutional moment, that is the question 411 00:24:53,880 --> 00:24:56,600 Speaker 1: of whether a sitting president can at fact be indicted. Now, 412 00:24:56,840 --> 00:25:01,120 Speaker 1: historically we did see that a think vice president can 413 00:25:01,160 --> 00:25:04,879 Speaker 1: be and anyone's bureau agne was subject to the criminal 414 00:25:04,920 --> 00:25:09,639 Speaker 1: investigation um before he had to leave the White House. 415 00:25:10,119 --> 00:25:12,480 Speaker 1: But in terms of the president, we've never seen that, 416 00:25:12,640 --> 00:25:15,920 Speaker 1: and we may be that may be coming up well 417 00:25:16,040 --> 00:25:19,440 Speaker 1: right before the election. Let me take you through a series. 418 00:25:19,960 --> 00:25:25,440 Speaker 1: Suppose that the judge, Judge Marrero, says this subpoena is good. 419 00:25:25,720 --> 00:25:28,280 Speaker 1: You can enforce the subpoena. You can comply with the 420 00:25:28,320 --> 00:25:33,359 Speaker 1: subpoena to the accountants. Then President Trump appeals to the 421 00:25:33,440 --> 00:25:39,840 Speaker 1: Second Circuit. But suppose the judge does not enjoin the 422 00:25:39,920 --> 00:25:43,440 Speaker 1: execution of the subpoena while the Second Circus case is 423 00:25:43,480 --> 00:25:47,280 Speaker 1: played out. But then what will happen as President Trump's 424 00:25:47,520 --> 00:25:50,080 Speaker 1: attorney would make an emergency motion in the Second Circuit 425 00:25:50,440 --> 00:25:54,720 Speaker 1: to stay enforcement the subpoena pending resolution of the appeal. 426 00:25:55,000 --> 00:25:57,880 Speaker 1: And my guess is that is exactly what the attorney 427 00:25:57,920 --> 00:26:02,439 Speaker 1: would do. Uh the Second would hold an emergency hearing 428 00:26:03,160 --> 00:26:07,000 Speaker 1: on that motion and make a decision um. But I 429 00:26:07,040 --> 00:26:11,320 Speaker 1: think that this is something that given the context, both 430 00:26:11,359 --> 00:26:14,880 Speaker 1: the Second Circuit as well as the lower court would 431 00:26:14,920 --> 00:26:18,399 Speaker 1: decide expeditiously. But it may end up going back to 432 00:26:18,760 --> 00:26:21,320 Speaker 1: the U. S. Supreme Court, and the U. S. Supreme 433 00:26:21,359 --> 00:26:24,560 Speaker 1: Court then would have to decide whether to decide this 434 00:26:24,600 --> 00:26:30,000 Speaker 1: on emotion or decide this on a another hearing. Um. 435 00:26:30,000 --> 00:26:32,200 Speaker 1: My guess is there will be distaste in the Supreme 436 00:26:32,200 --> 00:26:34,760 Speaker 1: Court to have a full hearing on this for a 437 00:26:34,800 --> 00:26:40,960 Speaker 1: second time because there won't be that many unique issues raised. Um. 438 00:26:41,080 --> 00:26:43,760 Speaker 1: And so it's possible that on the eve of the election, 439 00:26:44,440 --> 00:26:46,800 Speaker 1: the release will be released of the taxes, but that 440 00:26:46,840 --> 00:26:51,240 Speaker 1: doesn't mean anything because the information will be secretly before 441 00:26:51,280 --> 00:26:53,480 Speaker 1: the grand jury, and it's then it's up to the 442 00:26:53,480 --> 00:26:58,080 Speaker 1: grand jury to side whether to indict President Trump, indict 443 00:26:58,160 --> 00:27:03,880 Speaker 1: his son, indict here is accountants or whomever else allegedly 444 00:27:04,320 --> 00:27:08,960 Speaker 1: was part of this conspiracy to commit tax fraud. Because 445 00:27:09,000 --> 00:27:12,120 Speaker 1: if you're looking at the odds, it does seem like 446 00:27:12,600 --> 00:27:16,320 Speaker 1: the judge who previously ruled the subpoena was proper in 447 00:27:16,359 --> 00:27:20,240 Speaker 1: a seventy eight page opinion and the second Circuit which 448 00:27:20,280 --> 00:27:23,840 Speaker 1: previously ruled the subpoena was proper. That both those courts 449 00:27:24,040 --> 00:27:29,200 Speaker 1: are going to affirm what they said before. It's very 450 00:27:29,240 --> 00:27:32,400 Speaker 1: clear to me that the subpoena will be upheld, perhaps 451 00:27:32,440 --> 00:27:35,080 Speaker 1: in shorten their truncated form, but it will be upheld 452 00:27:35,080 --> 00:27:37,600 Speaker 1: by both the lower Court and the Court of appeals, 453 00:27:37,600 --> 00:27:39,240 Speaker 1: and I think it will actually be affirmed by the 454 00:27:39,240 --> 00:27:41,520 Speaker 1: Supreme Court if it goes up there as well as 455 00:27:41,520 --> 00:27:44,040 Speaker 1: Supreme Court may even refuse to hear it. But the 456 00:27:44,119 --> 00:27:47,520 Speaker 1: key question for those interested in the election is whether 457 00:27:47,680 --> 00:27:49,879 Speaker 1: once those claims are resolved, and it will take a 458 00:27:49,960 --> 00:27:52,520 Speaker 1: couple of months do that, does the grand jury have 459 00:27:52,600 --> 00:27:55,960 Speaker 1: any time too then the way the information with other 460 00:27:56,000 --> 00:28:00,320 Speaker 1: information that's received to decide whether to issue and tittenment 461 00:28:01,240 --> 00:28:05,200 Speaker 1: again against Trump, against his family, against his accountants, who 462 00:28:05,560 --> 00:28:10,320 Speaker 1: or whomever else was engaged in this alleged tech fraud. 463 00:28:11,040 --> 00:28:15,000 Speaker 1: Suppose that the grand jury has received the subpoena, they 464 00:28:15,200 --> 00:28:19,240 Speaker 1: make an indictment of President Trump and perhaps some others. 465 00:28:20,160 --> 00:28:24,399 Speaker 1: In a press conference, can the district attorney reveal some 466 00:28:24,560 --> 00:28:28,560 Speaker 1: of the underpinnings of that indictment and say, after we 467 00:28:28,640 --> 00:28:32,359 Speaker 1: got the tax returns, this is what we found. So 468 00:28:32,400 --> 00:28:35,520 Speaker 1: the the first of all, the information may be leaked, 469 00:28:35,640 --> 00:28:39,680 Speaker 1: and I think that President Trump's supporters are you know, 470 00:28:39,760 --> 00:28:43,280 Speaker 1: have a have legitimacy in terms of being concerned that 471 00:28:43,400 --> 00:28:47,440 Speaker 1: the taxes will be be leaked. But as sidon being leaked, uh, 472 00:28:47,680 --> 00:28:51,440 Speaker 1: the prosecutor at a press conference could give a general 473 00:28:51,480 --> 00:28:56,160 Speaker 1: information about what information backed at the grand jury's decision 474 00:28:56,240 --> 00:28:59,600 Speaker 1: to indict, if indeed they are allowed to indict a 475 00:28:59,680 --> 00:29:04,160 Speaker 1: sitting president, uh, but they cannot give the details. And again, um, 476 00:29:04,480 --> 00:29:07,239 Speaker 1: I think that's really don't know about this idea of 477 00:29:07,280 --> 00:29:12,320 Speaker 1: indicting a sitting president. There is all this research by 478 00:29:12,600 --> 00:29:15,600 Speaker 1: the Justice Department saying we understand there's a problem because 479 00:29:15,600 --> 00:29:18,400 Speaker 1: of the statute of limitations, um, but we just think 480 00:29:18,440 --> 00:29:22,000 Speaker 1: it's somehow unseemingly uh to do that. So it's gonna 481 00:29:22,000 --> 00:29:24,760 Speaker 1: be not a simple issue at all. Well, my own view, 482 00:29:25,160 --> 00:29:27,960 Speaker 1: I don't think you can prosecute. I totally think you 483 00:29:28,000 --> 00:29:31,040 Speaker 1: have to put off the prosecution until after the president 484 00:29:31,080 --> 00:29:34,320 Speaker 1: nice office. I mean, in my view, obviously they they've 485 00:29:34,360 --> 00:29:37,320 Speaker 1: tried it, like in Israel and some of the countries, um, 486 00:29:37,320 --> 00:29:40,160 Speaker 1: which has been a mess. But I do think you 487 00:29:40,160 --> 00:29:42,040 Speaker 1: can indict, and that's the line I would draw. But 488 00:29:42,080 --> 00:29:45,520 Speaker 1: you know, you can argue both ways, because there's very 489 00:29:45,520 --> 00:29:48,960 Speaker 1: little evidence in the constitution, uh, you know, one way 490 00:29:49,080 --> 00:29:50,960 Speaker 1: or the other. I mean, we know about impeachment, but 491 00:29:51,080 --> 00:29:54,360 Speaker 1: we don't know about indictment. So you know, the argument 492 00:29:54,440 --> 00:29:58,320 Speaker 1: is pretty much up for grabs. Thanks Harold. That's Harold 493 00:29:58,360 --> 00:30:01,880 Speaker 1: Grant professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law. The 494 00:30:01,920 --> 00:30:05,160 Speaker 1: Supreme Court refused to fast track the subpoenas from the 495 00:30:05,200 --> 00:30:09,400 Speaker 1: House for President Trump's financial records, rejecting their request to 496 00:30:09,520 --> 00:30:12,960 Speaker 1: return two cases to the appeals court level ahead of schedule. 497 00:30:13,400 --> 00:30:16,440 Speaker 1: The Court gave no explanation for its refusal, even though, 498 00:30:16,480 --> 00:30:19,760 Speaker 1: as we've been discussing in Chief Justice John Roberts last 499 00:30:19,800 --> 00:30:23,840 Speaker 1: week granted a similar request from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vans. 500 00:30:24,200 --> 00:30:26,600 Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. 501 00:30:26,920 --> 00:30:29,000 Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on 502 00:30:29,000 --> 00:30:32,800 Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud, 503 00:30:32,920 --> 00:30:37,440 Speaker 1: or Bloomberg dot com Slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grasso. 504 00:30:37,640 --> 00:30:40,120 Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and remember to tune in 505 00:30:40,120 --> 00:30:42,880 Speaker 1: to The Bloomberg Law Show weeknights. Attend Dann East Journey 506 00:30:43,000 --> 00:30:44,320 Speaker 1: right here on Bloomberg Radio.