WEBVTT - Are We Learning from Senators’ Impeachment Questions?

0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:04.440
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:04.720 --> 0:00:07.440
<v Speaker 1>Senate Democrats are making a final plea to at least

0:00:07.480 --> 0:00:11.000
<v Speaker 1>a few GOP senators to call witnesses in President Donald

0:00:11.000 --> 0:00:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Trump's impeachment trial, as senators began two days of questioning

0:00:14.880 --> 0:00:18.239
<v Speaker 1>his defense team and House prosecutors. The next phase of

0:00:18.280 --> 0:00:21.160
<v Speaker 1>the trial got underway today amid signs at a showdown

0:00:21.239 --> 0:00:23.000
<v Speaker 1>vote at the end of the week on whether to

0:00:23.120 --> 0:00:26.599
<v Speaker 1>call more witnesses is up for grabs. Joining me is

0:00:26.640 --> 0:00:30.560
<v Speaker 1>Brad Moss, a partner at Mark Zad. So there's talk

0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:36.080
<v Speaker 1>that John Bolton may be called, and now the White

0:00:36.120 --> 0:00:40.239
<v Speaker 1>House has issued a formal threat to Bolton to keep

0:00:40.280 --> 0:00:43.560
<v Speaker 1>him from publishing his book. How will that affect his

0:00:43.680 --> 0:00:46.040
<v Speaker 1>being called as a witness. Yes, so we're in a

0:00:46.040 --> 0:00:49.360
<v Speaker 1>bit of uncharted territory here. So to be clear, the

0:00:49.479 --> 0:00:52.559
<v Speaker 1>letter that was sent by the White House to Mr Bolton,

0:00:52.760 --> 0:00:55.280
<v Speaker 1>that reviewed the letter, it's up on Twitter at this point,

0:00:55.800 --> 0:00:58.240
<v Speaker 1>is not what I would considue as a threat. It's

0:00:58.280 --> 0:01:00.360
<v Speaker 1>actually I think been blowed a little bit out of portion.

0:01:00.880 --> 0:01:05.080
<v Speaker 1>This is somewhat standard correspondence that is issued when a

0:01:05.240 --> 0:01:10.640
<v Speaker 1>manuscript is undergoing classification. Review. The original version was submitted

0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:15.280
<v Speaker 1>on December by Mr Bolton's attorney to the National Security Council.

0:01:15.520 --> 0:01:18.240
<v Speaker 1>This has been following up saying we've already done a

0:01:18.319 --> 0:01:22.520
<v Speaker 1>preliminary review. We've already found some classified information, so there's

0:01:22.560 --> 0:01:25.360
<v Speaker 1>clearly to the stuff we're gonna require redactions on. The

0:01:25.400 --> 0:01:29.280
<v Speaker 1>review is ongoing. In the interim, you are not permitted

0:01:29.319 --> 0:01:31.959
<v Speaker 1>to publish anything until we give you final approval on

0:01:32.000 --> 0:01:36.319
<v Speaker 1>a version of this manuscript. Generally speaking, these kind of

0:01:36.600 --> 0:01:39.360
<v Speaker 1>letters are you know, generally really viewed any kind of

0:01:39.400 --> 0:01:42.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, threatening context. The reason it's been to view

0:01:42.120 --> 0:01:44.760
<v Speaker 1>that way here is because it's being issued in the

0:01:44.800 --> 0:01:47.520
<v Speaker 1>middle of it an impeachment saga in which John Bolton

0:01:47.640 --> 0:01:50.559
<v Speaker 1>is obviously a material fact with us, so it's taken

0:01:50.600 --> 0:01:55.320
<v Speaker 1>on a life of its own. The President can classify

0:01:55.360 --> 0:01:58.560
<v Speaker 1>anything he wants, can he? So? Can he classify the

0:01:58.560 --> 0:02:02.720
<v Speaker 1>book after it's already been written? Yes, so he could

0:02:02.800 --> 0:02:06.520
<v Speaker 1>classify the president if he wanted to determine the entirety

0:02:06.560 --> 0:02:09.799
<v Speaker 1>of this book is classified. However, if that were to

0:02:09.840 --> 0:02:11.400
<v Speaker 1>be what was done, if the White House were to

0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:14.760
<v Speaker 1>issue a final determination saying the President relying upon his

0:02:14.880 --> 0:02:18.080
<v Speaker 1>inherent article to authority has deemed your entire book to

0:02:18.080 --> 0:02:22.440
<v Speaker 1>be classified. Then under existing case law, John Bolton would

0:02:22.480 --> 0:02:26.080
<v Speaker 1>have the right to bring a First Amendment lawsuit challenging

0:02:26.400 --> 0:02:31.000
<v Speaker 1>the legality and a proprietary propriety of that classification determination,

0:02:31.280 --> 0:02:34.280
<v Speaker 1>and then the d o J in that lawsuit would

0:02:34.320 --> 0:02:37.040
<v Speaker 1>have to submit something from the President in which he

0:02:37.120 --> 0:02:40.400
<v Speaker 1>states publicly on the record that he is invoking his

0:02:40.639 --> 0:02:43.840
<v Speaker 1>article to authority to classify everything, in which case it

0:02:43.880 --> 0:02:47.480
<v Speaker 1>becomes a political liability for the president. But from a

0:02:47.560 --> 0:02:51.720
<v Speaker 1>legal standpoint, he could quote unquote win because at that

0:02:51.800 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 1>point that there's nothing to overrule the president's classification determination.

0:02:55.800 --> 0:02:57.200
<v Speaker 1>It becomes a question of whether or not they'd be

0:02:57.240 --> 0:02:59.360
<v Speaker 1>willing to put that in writing and submit it to

0:02:59.360 --> 0:03:02.920
<v Speaker 1>the court. Explain how that's different from the presidents saying

0:03:03.080 --> 0:03:07.040
<v Speaker 1>several times recently that you know he's going to exercise

0:03:07.200 --> 0:03:12.399
<v Speaker 1>executive privilege if Bolton wants to testify. Yes, So this

0:03:12.480 --> 0:03:15.320
<v Speaker 1>is a common misunderstanding that not only the presidents having,

0:03:15.320 --> 0:03:18.880
<v Speaker 1>but many people having executive privilege is a shield, it's

0:03:18.960 --> 0:03:22.160
<v Speaker 1>not a sword. So if someone who is a current

0:03:22.200 --> 0:03:25.840
<v Speaker 1>to form of government official has been subpoena to testify

0:03:25.919 --> 0:03:28.680
<v Speaker 1>and the the information they're going to testify about is

0:03:28.800 --> 0:03:33.880
<v Speaker 1>implicating executive privilege. They can refuse to testify in reliance

0:03:34.000 --> 0:03:36.800
<v Speaker 1>upon the fact that the president has the ability to

0:03:36.840 --> 0:03:42.000
<v Speaker 1>invoke executive privilege. But if that person wants to testify anyway,

0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:45.760
<v Speaker 1>the president has no ability to stop them, because again,

0:03:45.760 --> 0:03:48.080
<v Speaker 1>it is only a shield for them to rely upon

0:03:48.080 --> 0:03:50.600
<v Speaker 1>if they want it, is not a sword the president

0:03:50.640 --> 0:03:55.640
<v Speaker 1>can use to restrain them to censor their First Amendment communications. Now, obviously,

0:03:55.680 --> 0:03:58.800
<v Speaker 1>if they're an existing government employee, there's all other manner

0:03:58.840 --> 0:04:01.480
<v Speaker 1>of reasons why they wouldn't be allowed to testify anyway,

0:04:01.520 --> 0:04:03.960
<v Speaker 1>and they wouldn't want to they risk losing their job.

0:04:04.320 --> 0:04:06.760
<v Speaker 1>But if they're a former employee like John Bolton, there

0:04:06.880 --> 0:04:10.240
<v Speaker 1>is nothing the president can do, for example, to censor

0:04:10.440 --> 0:04:15.200
<v Speaker 1>unclassified information that might implicate executive privilege. That's in Bolton's book.

0:04:15.480 --> 0:04:17.520
<v Speaker 1>He has no ability under the law to do that.

0:04:17.600 --> 0:04:21.479
<v Speaker 1>He can only sensor classified information. Looking at the way

0:04:21.520 --> 0:04:24.040
<v Speaker 1>things are going, and I know that Mitch McConnell said

0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:27.680
<v Speaker 1>he didn't have the votes to stop witnesses, but that

0:04:27.720 --> 0:04:30.720
<v Speaker 1>could also be a ploy on his part. How likely

0:04:30.760 --> 0:04:35.360
<v Speaker 1>are we to hear from witnesses? It's really tough to assassinate.

0:04:35.480 --> 0:04:38.560
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I saw the same reports from Leader McConnell,

0:04:39.160 --> 0:04:41.359
<v Speaker 1>and I take it with the same grain. Assaut I

0:04:41.360 --> 0:04:43.880
<v Speaker 1>think you do. I think a lot of this somewhat posturing.

0:04:44.400 --> 0:04:46.839
<v Speaker 1>It's an indication that the votes likely to be close,

0:04:46.920 --> 0:04:50.159
<v Speaker 1>whatever it is, but that there's several members, most likely

0:04:50.240 --> 0:04:54.960
<v Speaker 1>Susan Collins, Senator Murkowski, Senator Romney, and maybe Senator Alexander

0:04:55.160 --> 0:04:57.400
<v Speaker 1>who were on the fence at the moment who were

0:04:57.520 --> 0:05:01.280
<v Speaker 1>uncomfortable with how this has gone forward and might want

0:05:01.320 --> 0:05:04.400
<v Speaker 1>to hear from witnesses such as John Bolton, and so

0:05:04.720 --> 0:05:07.440
<v Speaker 1>McConnell let that leak to kind of put pressure on

0:05:07.520 --> 0:05:10.320
<v Speaker 1>those senators to try to bring in some public pressure

0:05:10.400 --> 0:05:12.840
<v Speaker 1>to get them to back off. But I don't think

0:05:12.839 --> 0:05:14.480
<v Speaker 1>we're going to truly know one way or the other

0:05:14.480 --> 0:05:16.400
<v Speaker 1>how that vote is going to play out until we

0:05:16.480 --> 0:05:19.280
<v Speaker 1>have the vote itself. Does it seem to you as

0:05:19.320 --> 0:05:23.760
<v Speaker 1>if John Bolton may really want to testify now because

0:05:23.880 --> 0:05:28.560
<v Speaker 1>of this onslaught of attacks on him on his credibility.

0:05:29.000 --> 0:05:31.560
<v Speaker 1>I think originally the reason John Bolton, you know, wanted

0:05:31.600 --> 0:05:33.720
<v Speaker 1>to get this book out so quickly was he didn't

0:05:33.760 --> 0:05:37.160
<v Speaker 1>want his own professional reputation that he's built up over decades,

0:05:37.240 --> 0:05:40.520
<v Speaker 1>and his potential book sales to be tainted or stained

0:05:40.520 --> 0:05:43.640
<v Speaker 1>by the idea that he held back relevant information to

0:05:43.720 --> 0:05:46.679
<v Speaker 1>impeachment just to sell books. That was probably his original

0:05:46.680 --> 0:05:50.080
<v Speaker 1>impetis to move so quickly now with the various attacks

0:05:50.080 --> 0:05:52.320
<v Speaker 1>coming at him, I'm sure part of the reason he's

0:05:52.320 --> 0:05:56.880
<v Speaker 1>probably even more so willing to testify is to basically say, look,

0:05:56.920 --> 0:05:59.239
<v Speaker 1>I tried to do this the proper way. You guys

0:05:59.279 --> 0:06:02.200
<v Speaker 1>can't handle it. The president's threatening me, the media is

0:06:02.240 --> 0:06:05.840
<v Speaker 1>threatening me. If I'm called to testify, I'll testify. And

0:06:05.920 --> 0:06:08.720
<v Speaker 1>he's basically saying, you don't control me. I'm a private citizen.

0:06:09.000 --> 0:06:11.119
<v Speaker 1>I'll say whatever I want, so long as I don't

0:06:11.279 --> 0:06:14.919
<v Speaker 1>expose classified information. I've been talking to Brad Moss about

0:06:15.000 --> 0:06:19.120
<v Speaker 1>the latest phase of the impeachment trial, sixteen full hours

0:06:19.120 --> 0:06:24.440
<v Speaker 1>of questions from the senators. So, broadly speaking, do you

0:06:24.520 --> 0:06:29.880
<v Speaker 1>expect to hear any new arguments, any new information during

0:06:29.880 --> 0:06:33.160
<v Speaker 1>this period? Not really so A lot of what I

0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:34.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, starting to see this with some of the

0:06:34.800 --> 0:06:37.760
<v Speaker 1>initial questions, A lot of this is uh political theater

0:06:37.920 --> 0:06:40.120
<v Speaker 1>right now. Some of these questions when he saw I

0:06:40.120 --> 0:06:42.120
<v Speaker 1>think with Senator Mike Lee, who had a question of

0:06:42.400 --> 0:06:44.880
<v Speaker 1>isn't it the president's prerogative to decide how to conduct

0:06:45.000 --> 0:06:48.560
<v Speaker 1>foreign policy? Which was an easy, layup, softball question to

0:06:48.640 --> 0:06:51.520
<v Speaker 1>the president's lawyers. Some of that's just for the TV,

0:06:51.760 --> 0:06:54.040
<v Speaker 1>some of that's just a political theater and you know,

0:06:54.080 --> 0:06:57.440
<v Speaker 1>talking points. Um, there will be some relevant questions. There

0:06:57.480 --> 0:07:00.960
<v Speaker 1>was an interesting question from Senator Rick Scott of Florida

0:07:01.320 --> 0:07:04.040
<v Speaker 1>asking the extent to which, uh, you know, the House

0:07:04.120 --> 0:07:07.760
<v Speaker 1>and Patriot Managers have the equivalent of Brady requirements to

0:07:07.760 --> 0:07:12.000
<v Speaker 1>to divulge exculpatory information that could exonerate the president as

0:07:12.040 --> 0:07:15.240
<v Speaker 1>part of their presentation. It's an interesting question. I think.

0:07:15.240 --> 0:07:17.200
<v Speaker 1>I don't think, as far as I'm concerned, they don't

0:07:17.200 --> 0:07:19.720
<v Speaker 1>have that obligation, but it was a valid legal question

0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:23.160
<v Speaker 1>to ask. Uh. Senator Ronnie's going to have several questions,

0:07:23.240 --> 0:07:27.280
<v Speaker 1>especially about John Bolton, especially about Rudy Giuliani and what

0:07:27.400 --> 0:07:32.520
<v Speaker 1>exactly the President was tasking him with to do in Ukraine. UM.

0:07:32.680 --> 0:07:35.320
<v Speaker 1>So there's for the individuals who truly are still kind

0:07:35.320 --> 0:07:37.080
<v Speaker 1>of on the fence where she washed you about how

0:07:37.120 --> 0:07:39.360
<v Speaker 1>they're going to proceed. I expect to see some decent

0:07:39.400 --> 0:07:42.520
<v Speaker 1>questions out of them for everybody else the hardcore you

0:07:42.560 --> 0:07:46.320
<v Speaker 1>know partisans amongst in the Senate, you're gonna see just politicized,

0:07:46.400 --> 0:07:50.360
<v Speaker 1>you know questions. Let's look back at the arguments and

0:07:50.520 --> 0:07:55.400
<v Speaker 1>compare the strength of the House arguments with the strength

0:07:55.600 --> 0:07:59.560
<v Speaker 1>of the defense. So I think the House put on

0:07:59.720 --> 0:08:03.880
<v Speaker 1>what would be viewed as a very methodical, very well

0:08:03.920 --> 0:08:08.200
<v Speaker 1>presented case if this were a normal criminal prosecution in

0:08:08.200 --> 0:08:11.840
<v Speaker 1>a court of law. Um, they walked through it step

0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:15.920
<v Speaker 1>by step from the entire chronology, piece by piece, with texts,

0:08:16.280 --> 0:08:21.000
<v Speaker 1>with video. Let's started with the transcripts of calls, with memoranda,

0:08:21.160 --> 0:08:23.920
<v Speaker 1>with witness testimony, and they get They gave you a

0:08:24.000 --> 0:08:28.520
<v Speaker 1>plus B plus C equals the required result of the conviction,

0:08:29.080 --> 0:08:30.440
<v Speaker 1>and that would have worked great if it was a

0:08:30.440 --> 0:08:33.960
<v Speaker 1>court of law. The president's legal team did what they

0:08:33.960 --> 0:08:35.880
<v Speaker 1>would what you would expect them to do, given that

0:08:35.920 --> 0:08:38.280
<v Speaker 1>this is a political court, not a court of law,

0:08:38.320 --> 0:08:41.040
<v Speaker 1>but a court of politics in the context of impeachment.

0:08:41.240 --> 0:08:44.440
<v Speaker 1>And they argued a lot of peripheral facts that would

0:08:44.440 --> 0:08:48.079
<v Speaker 1>have been viewed as irrelevant by enlarged an actual court case.

0:08:48.240 --> 0:08:50.000
<v Speaker 1>But would you can bring up here. They talked about

0:08:50.000 --> 0:08:53.200
<v Speaker 1>the FBI surveillance a card to page they talked about Mueller,

0:08:53.280 --> 0:08:56.040
<v Speaker 1>they talked about the Steel dossier, things that have nothing

0:08:56.080 --> 0:08:58.600
<v Speaker 1>to do with this case but which serve as great

0:08:58.640 --> 0:09:04.840
<v Speaker 1>political theater. Main crux of their legal defense basically became justification,

0:09:05.240 --> 0:09:07.960
<v Speaker 1>which was the President had a reasonable basis to believe

0:09:08.559 --> 0:09:12.960
<v Speaker 1>Hunter Biden's activities were corrupt, possibly criminal, and that's why

0:09:13.000 --> 0:09:15.439
<v Speaker 1>he did what he did. In terms of trying to

0:09:15.480 --> 0:09:18.800
<v Speaker 1>get the Ukrainians to launch an investigation, they did through

0:09:18.840 --> 0:09:20.960
<v Speaker 1>a lot about a Hunter Biden, and again that was

0:09:21.080 --> 0:09:24.840
<v Speaker 1>largely for public consumption, because there is no dj investigation

0:09:24.880 --> 0:09:28.000
<v Speaker 1>of Hunter Biden. There's no indictment of Hunter Biden. But

0:09:28.120 --> 0:09:30.880
<v Speaker 1>the justification they were trying to put up was this

0:09:31.040 --> 0:09:33.319
<v Speaker 1>was how Donald Trump was trying to get to the truth.

0:09:33.600 --> 0:09:36.880
<v Speaker 1>He's not the most taxful man, but that's not required

0:09:37.000 --> 0:09:40.280
<v Speaker 1>under the law. And what do you make of some

0:09:40.360 --> 0:09:42.920
<v Speaker 1>of the Republicans saying, you know, we want to make

0:09:42.960 --> 0:09:47.280
<v Speaker 1>a deal John Bolton for Hunter Biden. Why would they

0:09:47.320 --> 0:09:51.280
<v Speaker 1>even say that they can just call whoever they want, Well,

0:09:51.320 --> 0:09:55.000
<v Speaker 1>they don't want to have any witnesses. The reason they're

0:09:55.280 --> 0:09:57.719
<v Speaker 1>the reason they were proposing this deal isn't so much

0:09:57.760 --> 0:10:00.640
<v Speaker 1>about a worried about the Democrats they were worried about

0:10:00.679 --> 0:10:03.600
<v Speaker 1>people like, you know, like Senators Romney and Barkowski and Collins,

0:10:03.840 --> 0:10:05.920
<v Speaker 1>who might want to look into some of the facts

0:10:05.960 --> 0:10:08.600
<v Speaker 1>that the rest of the Republican caucus is really trying

0:10:08.640 --> 0:10:11.480
<v Speaker 1>to avoid getting into. And so to try to head

0:10:11.520 --> 0:10:14.120
<v Speaker 1>off that potential issue, they were trying to throw up

0:10:14.120 --> 0:10:15.800
<v Speaker 1>this idea of a deal of Okay, we'll let you

0:10:15.840 --> 0:10:17.920
<v Speaker 1>have John Bolton, but then we want to bring in

0:10:18.120 --> 0:10:21.400
<v Speaker 1>Hunter Biden, and so they could get their entire caucus

0:10:21.400 --> 0:10:23.520
<v Speaker 1>on board with that as well. It was, you know,

0:10:23.559 --> 0:10:27.160
<v Speaker 1>a political you know, trial balloon. It didn't really go

0:10:27.360 --> 0:10:30.199
<v Speaker 1>very well. I'm not quite sure how that would play out.

0:10:30.440 --> 0:10:32.439
<v Speaker 1>But if they have one witness, I have a feeling

0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:35.520
<v Speaker 1>we're gonna have multiple witnesses. Let's talk a little bit

0:10:35.559 --> 0:10:41.160
<v Speaker 1>about Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz's argument, because though it's definitely

0:10:41.200 --> 0:10:46.560
<v Speaker 1>a minority view of you know, what's necessary for high

0:10:46.600 --> 0:10:50.520
<v Speaker 1>crimes and misdemeanors, it does give some kind of cover

0:10:50.679 --> 0:10:54.640
<v Speaker 1>to Republicans who want to say, well, even if that's true,

0:10:55.160 --> 0:10:59.240
<v Speaker 1>this doesn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanor. Yeah,

0:10:59.320 --> 0:11:01.760
<v Speaker 1>so what Alan Derschwitz has put forward and music putting

0:11:01.760 --> 0:11:04.840
<v Speaker 1>forward an argument like this for years. It's his very

0:11:04.880 --> 0:11:10.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, controversial but well established expansive view of presidential authority.

0:11:10.720 --> 0:11:15.200
<v Speaker 1>He has largely decided that impeachment that very little, if anything,

0:11:15.200 --> 0:11:20.360
<v Speaker 1>will ever qualify as an impeachable offense outside of actual treason,

0:11:20.960 --> 0:11:23.520
<v Speaker 1>and it would be virtually impossible to ever get to

0:11:23.600 --> 0:11:26.199
<v Speaker 1>that point as far as he's concerned. You know, the way,

0:11:26.240 --> 0:11:28.160
<v Speaker 1>the kind of the legal argument he set forth on

0:11:28.200 --> 0:11:32.480
<v Speaker 1>a constitutional standpoint is assumed that this was all entirely

0:11:32.520 --> 0:11:36.680
<v Speaker 1>a scheme to utilize to start to extort the Ukrainians,

0:11:36.760 --> 0:11:41.800
<v Speaker 1>to launch a frivolous, uh and unnecessary investigation into the

0:11:41.800 --> 0:11:44.720
<v Speaker 1>Bidens in order to get the foreign aid that we

0:11:44.720 --> 0:11:48.720
<v Speaker 1>were supposed to. That conversai a lotted under Elan Derschwitz

0:11:48.760 --> 0:11:52.040
<v Speaker 1>is analysis of the Constitution and the appeachment articles that's

0:11:52.280 --> 0:11:55.800
<v Speaker 1>permissible under the president's authority, and it's non impeachable offense.

0:11:56.360 --> 0:11:58.920
<v Speaker 1>If the president works to just let the Ukrainians right,

0:11:59.000 --> 0:12:01.959
<v Speaker 1>let the Russians take Alaska today and not do anything

0:12:01.960 --> 0:12:05.640
<v Speaker 1>in response. As far as Alan Dersho was is concerned,

0:12:05.840 --> 0:12:09.520
<v Speaker 1>that's not an impeachable offense. There's very little he views

0:12:09.559 --> 0:12:13.199
<v Speaker 1>as ever rising to the level of what qualifies as

0:12:13.240 --> 0:12:17.520
<v Speaker 1>impeachable and that justifies removal. It's an extremely expansive view

0:12:17.920 --> 0:12:21.040
<v Speaker 1>of presidential authority. It's not the first time someone's put

0:12:21.040 --> 0:12:23.920
<v Speaker 1>forth something like this, but it's concerning in this day

0:12:23.960 --> 0:12:26.160
<v Speaker 1>and age to see that argument still put forward on

0:12:26.240 --> 0:12:30.280
<v Speaker 1>the Florida sidate. So, even at this point, where there

0:12:30.320 --> 0:12:34.719
<v Speaker 1>may be witnesses called, the general consensus is that it

0:12:34.760 --> 0:12:37.959
<v Speaker 1>won't make a difference. That the House Democrats will never

0:12:38.000 --> 0:12:42.480
<v Speaker 1>get the number of votes needed to actually kick President

0:12:42.520 --> 0:12:47.679
<v Speaker 1>Trump out of office. So Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats,

0:12:47.720 --> 0:12:52.200
<v Speaker 1>were they wrong to put the nation through this? No,

0:12:52.320 --> 0:12:54.040
<v Speaker 1>so I think it was the right thing to do

0:12:54.120 --> 0:12:58.640
<v Speaker 1>from a constitutional obligation standpoint. But you still pursue it.

0:12:58.679 --> 0:13:02.960
<v Speaker 1>You still conducted only to make clear that the Congress

0:13:03.000 --> 0:13:05.920
<v Speaker 1>will not just be subjugated to the presidency and will

0:13:05.920 --> 0:13:10.760
<v Speaker 1>not allow it to act without political and without political consequences.

0:13:10.800 --> 0:13:12.840
<v Speaker 1>The fact that this is almost certainly going to result

0:13:12.840 --> 0:13:16.000
<v Speaker 1>in an acquittal is ultimately neither here nor there, because

0:13:16.160 --> 0:13:18.920
<v Speaker 1>the House it did its job to determine what it

0:13:19.040 --> 0:13:21.200
<v Speaker 1>viewed as impeachable, and the Senate is going to do

0:13:21.240 --> 0:13:23.560
<v Speaker 1>its job and decide whether or not to acquit, and

0:13:23.559 --> 0:13:26.439
<v Speaker 1>if the Senate chooses to acquit, that's the Senate's prerogative

0:13:26.520 --> 0:13:29.240
<v Speaker 1>and the decision is ultimately left to the voters of

0:13:29.280 --> 0:13:31.760
<v Speaker 1>what to do with it. But the two branches of

0:13:31.840 --> 0:13:36.400
<v Speaker 1>Congress did their job to fully, you know, explore the

0:13:36.440 --> 0:13:39.080
<v Speaker 1>matter and decide how they wanted to act from a

0:13:39.080 --> 0:13:43.160
<v Speaker 1>constitutional standpoint. Thanks Brad, that's Brad Mass, her partner in

0:13:43.240 --> 0:13:48.040
<v Speaker 1>Mark's Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You

0:13:48.080 --> 0:13:52.040
<v Speaker 1>can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:56.000
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso.

0:13:56.480 --> 0:14:01.480
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Dependent dat