Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The second deadline
Speaker 1: has passed and the Attorney General has ignored it. Attorney
Speaker 1: General William Barr defied the Monday deadline imposed by a
Speaker 1: House subpoena to provide lawmakers with the full text of
Speaker 1: the Mullah report, and he is as he ignored the
Speaker 1: deadline last week. What happens when the top law enforcement
Speaker 1: official in the country ignores legal process. Joining me is
Speaker 1: brad moss apartment Mark zad so Brad The Chairman of
Speaker 1: the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, has scheduled a vote
Speaker 1: on Wednesday on whether to hold the a G in contempt.
Speaker 1: If they do hold him in contempt and the House
Speaker 1: also votes on contempt, Canada enforced the contempt citation on
Speaker 1: its own by its inherent Contempt authority, So this the
Speaker 1: honest answer is, yes, it can, but it's highly unlikely
Speaker 1: they will. Congress has not relied upon its inherent contempt
Speaker 1: authority in a criminal context since the nineteen thirties. It's
Speaker 1: just something they don't do. This is a lot about
Speaker 1: political posturing right now, and this is somewhat normal for
Speaker 1: Congress and the executive branch when one party controls the
Speaker 1: Oval Office and one party controls at least one or
Speaker 1: two of the branches of Congress. We saw this with
Speaker 1: Eric Holder during the Obama administration. This is all about leverage,
Speaker 1: negotiating stanzas, and trying to get as much out of
Speaker 1: the just Department as House Democrats can do. We'll see,
Speaker 1: certainly the contempt vote. There will be a bunch of
Speaker 1: political hyperbolean writer that comes out of it. What will
Speaker 1: matter in the end is what change in legal position
Speaker 1: the o J ultimately takes to try to de escalate
Speaker 1: the situation, reduce tensions, and bring this to a point
Speaker 1: where the two sides can find a consents. I assume
Speaker 1: there'll be some additional information. House Democrats will budget, will
Speaker 1: a bid on their spot, and DJ will do the same.
Speaker 1: There's not going to be a criminal prosecution of this.
Speaker 1: Do you think it may end up with Congress going
Speaker 1: to a federal judge to enforce its subpoena. If they do,
Speaker 1: it will be only in a civil context, which I
Speaker 1: certainly expects some manner of a fight on this again,
Speaker 1: just like just like we did had with Eric Holder
Speaker 1: on the Fast and Furious documents. There's going to be um,
Speaker 1: some legal wrangling and some fights in court about it.
Speaker 1: And that's certainly, you know, the way the system is
Speaker 1: expected to work. It's the way it's set up. And
Speaker 1: I think that's part of the Trump administration's game planet.
Speaker 1: They know they'll ultimately lose to some extent on the
Speaker 1: law and on the merits, but they're dragging it out.
Speaker 1: They're delaying things as long as they can to try
Speaker 1: to push it off until after. Holder was the first
Speaker 1: Attorney General I believe to be held in contempt of Congress.
Speaker 1: So if bar is the second, have we reached a
Speaker 1: point where, you know, congressional subpoenas don't really matter, where
Speaker 1: the process is just to ignored by the highest law
Speaker 1: enforcement official in the country. I think it speaks somewhat
Speaker 1: to the d function of the subpoena process. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it's gay. I mean there's always been politics to
Speaker 1: play with any you know, Congress in presidency. That's not new,
Speaker 1: that's nothing out of the ordinary, but I think it's
Speaker 1: become so tribalistic and the use of congressional oversight has
Speaker 1: gotten to such a ridiculous point of over politicization that
Speaker 1: you have what you've gotten out, just as you know,
Speaker 1: I think holding Eric Holder in contempt was just political posturing.
Speaker 1: I think it's the same year with William Barr. It's
Speaker 1: really more about negotiating tactics and prepping you know, talking
Speaker 1: points for you know, yours, for your five minutes segments
Speaker 1: on cable news at night, more than so that it
Speaker 1: is about any true legal position. And like I said,
Speaker 1: in the end, there'll be more documents of will come out.
Speaker 1: This is all politics. Let's talk a little bit more
Speaker 1: broadly about the subpoenas and President Trump's vow to fight
Speaker 1: every congressional subpoena. One of the articles of impetement against
Speaker 1: Richard Nixon was ignoring subpoena's basically, will this lead to
Speaker 1: impeachment proceedings and perhaps give Congress more push for enforcing
Speaker 1: their subpoenas. I certainly think, you know, if the president
Speaker 1: maintains this current position, which I think is you know,
Speaker 1: completely ridiculous, Yeah, I think it'll it'll egg on certain
Speaker 1: Democrats to push a little harder towards appeachment, if only
Speaker 1: to try to exercise some true oversight. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: every Congress will overreach, will always get a little excessive
Speaker 1: in their attempt to scrutinize an opposing party in the
Speaker 1: White House. But never have I seen a presidency so
Speaker 1: completely and categorically refused to apply with anything this whole.
Speaker 1: We're not going to comply with any Subpoena's nonsense. It's
Speaker 1: just not how the system works. So you know, like
Speaker 1: I said, a lot of us is poppic. A lot
Speaker 1: of its delaying things, trying to push off through oversight
Speaker 1: until after when the president does have to worry about
Speaker 1: re election anymore. There will be a lot of fights
Speaker 1: in court over it. The President team ultimately lose on
Speaker 1: aspects of it, and they'll end up turning over documents.
Speaker 1: This is just about delayed tactics, also defying requests by
Speaker 1: Congress to have various people testify. Let's deal first with
Speaker 1: the White House. Former White House counsel Don McGann, who
Speaker 1: was one of the most notable people repeatedly mentioned in
Speaker 1: the Mueller Report. Can the President now say, as he
Speaker 1: has said that he doesn't want to let him testify.
Speaker 1: Can he assert executive privilege when Don McGann has basically
Speaker 1: testified in the Mulla Report. Yes, so my my view,
Speaker 1: especially now that the even beyond McGann having simply testified,
Speaker 1: but having that testimony outlined and repleases the public due
Speaker 1: to Muller Report, as far as I'm concerned, waive the privilege.
Speaker 1: But will the president is still try to argue that
Speaker 1: he can still invoke it. Yes, Will he try to
Speaker 1: delay things by doing so? Yes? Will he likely lose
Speaker 1: in the end pretty much, But if he can kind
Speaker 1: of pressure McGann to hold off, make McGan uncomfortable, and
Speaker 1: make him wait till the presidents fought this legal war
Speaker 1: over executive privilege, it delays the time frame for McGann
Speaker 1: to ultimately testify. In the end, you know, Congress has
Speaker 1: its leverage. It can bring over former officials like McGann
Speaker 1: that can't bring on existing officials like William Barr. They can,
Speaker 1: you know, can they can hold McGann in contempt. They
Speaker 1: can try to find him and McGann might decide he
Speaker 1: doesn't care what the President says, But ultimately again, more
Speaker 1: than anything else, this is just trying to hold off
Speaker 1: these guys testifying during trying to push it to just
Speaker 1: about forty five seconds here. But McGann, who the President
Speaker 1: has called him a liar basically what he said about
Speaker 1: about trying to stop the investigation, the Muller investigation. So
Speaker 1: if McGann wants to, he can testify before Congress. He
Speaker 1: doesn't have to have the president's permission, correct, I mean,
Speaker 1: I certainly think the McGann team could conclude that he
Speaker 1: has the ability that there's the president that can't truly
Speaker 1: prevent him from doing. Though now there might be some
Speaker 1: legal wrangling over what he can discuss to lead, depending
Speaker 1: on whether it's in the court flight or executive privilege.
Speaker 1: He just got to worry about his own existing bar
Speaker 1: our license picture. He isn't doing to break any ethic
Speaker 1: about all right. Thanks so much, Brad. That's Brad Moss
Speaker 1: of partner at mark Z. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the
Speaker 1: show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com
Speaker 1: slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg