WEBVTT - Schneiderman Steps Down After Physical Abuse Allegations

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.560
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com Slash podcasts. New York Attorney

0:00:22.600 --> 0:00:25.760
<v Speaker 1>General Eric Schneiderman is resigning as the state's highest law

0:00:25.880 --> 0:00:29.800
<v Speaker 1>enforcement official. Schneiderman announced his resignation just hours after a

0:00:29.840 --> 0:00:33.279
<v Speaker 1>magazine article in which four women accused him of physical violence.

0:00:33.600 --> 0:00:37.160
<v Speaker 1>Schneiderman said in a statement, while these allegations are unrelated

0:00:37.200 --> 0:00:39.880
<v Speaker 1>to my professional conduct or the operations of the office,

0:00:40.040 --> 0:00:42.640
<v Speaker 1>they will effectively prevent me from leading the office is

0:00:42.680 --> 0:00:45.600
<v Speaker 1>work at this critical time. Joining me is Bloomberg News

0:00:45.640 --> 0:00:49.080
<v Speaker 1>Legal investigative reporter Greg Farrell. Greg tell us about the

0:00:49.120 --> 0:00:55.800
<v Speaker 1>allegations from these four women broadly, um basically, each of

0:00:55.800 --> 0:00:58.760
<v Speaker 1>them tells the variants of the same story that they

0:00:58.800 --> 0:01:02.080
<v Speaker 1>had an intimate relation ship with Sniderman, and that at

0:01:02.120 --> 0:01:05.440
<v Speaker 1>certain points he struck them, slapped them very hard across

0:01:05.480 --> 0:01:09.760
<v Speaker 1>the face, uh, in more than one case, choked you know,

0:01:10.080 --> 0:01:12.560
<v Speaker 1>one or several of the women to the point where

0:01:12.600 --> 0:01:15.920
<v Speaker 1>you know they felt that they had trouble breathing, UM

0:01:16.120 --> 0:01:18.800
<v Speaker 1>left marks on their faces to the to the effect

0:01:18.800 --> 0:01:22.120
<v Speaker 1>that these women would go and share details with friends

0:01:22.520 --> 0:01:26.920
<v Speaker 1>to um to corroborate them. UM. And also just a

0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:32.320
<v Speaker 1>like a power relationship, treating them in demeaning fashion. UM.

0:01:32.640 --> 0:01:35.200
<v Speaker 1>Forcing them to drink more than they would drink alcohol

0:01:35.280 --> 0:01:36.920
<v Speaker 1>is at the center of a lot of these uh,

0:01:37.040 --> 0:01:40.160
<v Speaker 1>you know a lot of these scenes. Yeah. Now, this

0:01:40.240 --> 0:01:43.959
<v Speaker 1>came as a shock too many people, especially after Schniderman's

0:01:44.040 --> 0:01:48.120
<v Speaker 1>legislative and legal advocacy for women's rights, his support of

0:01:48.160 --> 0:01:51.360
<v Speaker 1>the Me Too movement. Were there any hints about this

0:01:51.520 --> 0:01:55.080
<v Speaker 1>before the story was published in The New Yorker. No.

0:01:55.480 --> 0:01:59.120
<v Speaker 1>And it's clear from the New Yorker article, which did

0:01:59.120 --> 0:02:01.960
<v Speaker 1>an amazing level of reporting on this, that this didn't

0:02:02.000 --> 0:02:04.240
<v Speaker 1>just come out yesterday. I think the office there has

0:02:04.240 --> 0:02:06.440
<v Speaker 1>had at least a week I'm guessing, you know, the

0:02:06.520 --> 0:02:10.040
<v Speaker 1>back and forth on this. UM. It is amazing that

0:02:10.120 --> 0:02:13.280
<v Speaker 1>nothing like this had come out before, and ironically it

0:02:13.360 --> 0:02:15.440
<v Speaker 1>was the Me too movement. I think a number of

0:02:15.440 --> 0:02:18.040
<v Speaker 1>these women who thought they were individual and this only

0:02:18.040 --> 0:02:20.919
<v Speaker 1>happened to them and maybe questioned or had self doubt

0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:24.200
<v Speaker 1>about what their role might have been in this um

0:02:24.280 --> 0:02:25.919
<v Speaker 1>once a couple of them got together and realized it

0:02:25.960 --> 0:02:28.800
<v Speaker 1>was more than one women, and then hearing the former

0:02:28.840 --> 0:02:31.440
<v Speaker 1>attorney general will speak on at some length about women's

0:02:31.520 --> 0:02:34.840
<v Speaker 1>rights and me too and the importance of treating women

0:02:34.840 --> 0:02:37.440
<v Speaker 1>with respect that they know. It's spilled over to the

0:02:37.440 --> 0:02:39.960
<v Speaker 1>point where two of the four women referenced in the story,

0:02:39.960 --> 0:02:44.519
<v Speaker 1>we're willing to go on the record with their names. Now. First,

0:02:44.680 --> 0:02:49.680
<v Speaker 1>Schneiderman was investigating Manhattan d A. Sivance Jr. Now Sivans Jr.

0:02:50.000 --> 0:02:53.400
<v Speaker 1>Is investigating Eric Schneiderman. I want to say only in

0:02:53.440 --> 0:02:56.320
<v Speaker 1>New York, but I think this would happen anywhere right now,

0:02:56.800 --> 0:02:59.160
<v Speaker 1>like only in New York. It's almost comical. It's not comical,

0:02:59.160 --> 0:03:03.200
<v Speaker 1>but it's almost common goal the and to some extent,

0:03:03.280 --> 0:03:08.040
<v Speaker 1>this is not the not Vance's investigation of Schneiderman's conduct

0:03:08.040 --> 0:03:10.440
<v Speaker 1>that falls well, we'll get to that in a second.

0:03:10.480 --> 0:03:14.840
<v Speaker 1>First of all, the fact that Governor Cuomo recommended and

0:03:14.919 --> 0:03:19.919
<v Speaker 1>referred the Vances, you know, lack of prosecution or lack

0:03:19.960 --> 0:03:23.200
<v Speaker 1>of action against Harvey Weinstein a few years ago, is strange.

0:03:23.240 --> 0:03:25.840
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure if there's any legal basis for one

0:03:25.919 --> 0:03:29.800
<v Speaker 1>constitutional officer, the governor, ordering another constitutional officer, the a

0:03:29.880 --> 0:03:35.520
<v Speaker 1>G to investigate a third constitutional office, the Manhattan District Attorney. Um,

0:03:35.560 --> 0:03:37.960
<v Speaker 1>you might disagree with cy Vance's judgments on things like

0:03:38.000 --> 0:03:42.240
<v Speaker 1>the Weinstein case, but but that's his prerogative. He said

0:03:42.240 --> 0:03:45.760
<v Speaker 1>there wasn't enough, and maybe he's wrong, but that's sort

0:03:45.760 --> 0:03:48.240
<v Speaker 1>of what you know, prosecutors you run get elected for

0:03:48.440 --> 0:03:50.520
<v Speaker 1>and if you're unhappy with him, you don't vote from

0:03:50.520 --> 0:03:53.480
<v Speaker 1>next time. But to go in sick, you know, the

0:03:53.520 --> 0:03:57.120
<v Speaker 1>Attorney general on that without some real reason, it just

0:03:57.160 --> 0:04:01.960
<v Speaker 1>seems strange. So anyway, yes, Um, now the conduct here, Uh,

0:04:02.040 --> 0:04:05.480
<v Speaker 1>this is for Sivance. This seems like a a loser.

0:04:05.520 --> 0:04:10.760
<v Speaker 1>I mean, if his office finds like some you know

0:04:10.880 --> 0:04:14.360
<v Speaker 1>grounds to you know, misdemeanor or felony, uh, you know,

0:04:14.440 --> 0:04:18.320
<v Speaker 1>charges against Sneiderman, it'll look like political payback. So that's

0:04:18.320 --> 0:04:20.640
<v Speaker 1>bad too. If they don't find anything, it will look

0:04:20.680 --> 0:04:23.160
<v Speaker 1>bad like he's weak and he's not doing anything, you know,

0:04:23.680 --> 0:04:25.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, like like what happened with Dominique straus Khan

0:04:26.080 --> 0:04:28.000
<v Speaker 1>and like what happened with Weinstein a few years ago.

0:04:28.040 --> 0:04:30.440
<v Speaker 1>So this is I'm sure something that Sivance is not

0:04:30.640 --> 0:04:35.160
<v Speaker 1>like looking forward to yeah, exactly now. Snoderman has gotten

0:04:35.240 --> 0:04:38.719
<v Speaker 1>national recognition for the role he's played in resisting Trump

0:04:38.839 --> 0:04:42.719
<v Speaker 1>administration policies from environment to immigration, but he was also

0:04:42.839 --> 0:04:45.719
<v Speaker 1>seen as someone who would might step in if the

0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:49.320
<v Speaker 1>president pardoned people close to him like Paul Manaford, and

0:04:49.440 --> 0:04:52.320
<v Speaker 1>last month they even asked lawmakers to change the States

0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:57.000
<v Speaker 1>double jeopardy law to exempt presidential pardons. Is there concerned

0:04:57.080 --> 0:05:01.760
<v Speaker 1>that those efforts in that role will be abandoned, I'm not. No,

0:05:01.960 --> 0:05:04.440
<v Speaker 1>I don't. I wouldn't. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion

0:05:04.440 --> 0:05:06.880
<v Speaker 1>immediately for a couple of reasons. One, this is still

0:05:07.120 --> 0:05:10.200
<v Speaker 1>very much a blue state, and whoever replaces Schneiderman is

0:05:10.240 --> 0:05:13.080
<v Speaker 1>going to be some from the same political background, uh

0:05:13.120 --> 0:05:15.960
<v Speaker 1>as Schneiderman. It does sort of disrupt I mean, Schneiderman

0:05:16.000 --> 0:05:19.000
<v Speaker 1>did establish himself as a he was gladly played the

0:05:19.080 --> 0:05:22.799
<v Speaker 1>role of foil to President Trump and antagonist to President Trump.

0:05:22.800 --> 0:05:26.000
<v Speaker 1>So whether or not his successor, you know, relishes the

0:05:26.040 --> 0:05:29.039
<v Speaker 1>same sort of role, that remains to be seen. However,

0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:31.320
<v Speaker 1>Schneierman is not the only actor in this case. Again,

0:05:31.360 --> 0:05:34.080
<v Speaker 1>going back to Sivance, I Vance's office is also looking

0:05:34.120 --> 0:05:37.480
<v Speaker 1>into conduct related to you know, people around Trump as

0:05:37.520 --> 0:05:40.120
<v Speaker 1>sort of a and none of them are stepping on

0:05:40.279 --> 0:05:44.000
<v Speaker 1>Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. But I think it's clear

0:05:44.040 --> 0:05:46.480
<v Speaker 1>that they're ready and waiting so that if something happens

0:05:46.480 --> 0:05:49.359
<v Speaker 1>to Mallor or pardons, you know, blanket pardons are issued

0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:52.719
<v Speaker 1>in these cases that you know, state regulative state, you know,

0:05:52.800 --> 0:05:54.960
<v Speaker 1>actors in New York can go ahead and take action.

0:05:55.440 --> 0:05:58.800
<v Speaker 1>So now we're going to have a real election for

0:05:59.320 --> 0:06:02.960
<v Speaker 1>New York Attorne general because he was the overwhelming favorite before.

0:06:03.520 --> 0:06:06.920
<v Speaker 1>What names are being mentioned for the Democratic nominee? There

0:06:07.480 --> 0:06:09.760
<v Speaker 1>A few of the names we've heard include Kathleen Rice

0:06:10.120 --> 0:06:15.279
<v Speaker 1>Um and uh, I think Letitia James Um. So clearly

0:06:15.320 --> 0:06:17.640
<v Speaker 1>several women's names have been put forward and given what

0:06:17.760 --> 0:06:21.039
<v Speaker 1>happened to Governor Spitzer a decade ago, and now this

0:06:21.279 --> 0:06:23.720
<v Speaker 1>clearly makes sense that you know, having a woman that

0:06:23.760 --> 0:06:26.800
<v Speaker 1>position would be a very good move politically. So those

0:06:26.839 --> 0:06:30.720
<v Speaker 1>are some of the names. However, Um, there's a there's

0:06:30.760 --> 0:06:34.039
<v Speaker 1>a this is an interesting political dilemma, or at least

0:06:34.040 --> 0:06:37.279
<v Speaker 1>a political situation in Albany. They have a chance now

0:06:37.320 --> 0:06:40.600
<v Speaker 1>in Albany to designate someone to you know, serve as

0:06:40.680 --> 0:06:44.400
<v Speaker 1>Attorney General until the election in November. Um. I think

0:06:44.400 --> 0:06:46.400
<v Speaker 1>the hope is they'll find someone who can then be

0:06:46.480 --> 0:06:48.679
<v Speaker 1>the woman favorite and keep the job. In other words,

0:06:48.680 --> 0:06:53.640
<v Speaker 1>basically sliding someone in and politically, uh, they don't want

0:06:53.640 --> 0:06:55.640
<v Speaker 1>someone who would be too tough or go after corruption

0:06:55.640 --> 0:06:58.760
<v Speaker 1>in Albany. That that's that's for another show. Thank you

0:06:58.880 --> 0:07:02.120
<v Speaker 1>so much, breg as a eas that's Bloomberg News Legal

0:07:02.640 --> 0:07:11.120
<v Speaker 1>investigative reporter Greg Farrell. Gina Haspell spent three decades working

0:07:11.120 --> 0:07:13.840
<v Speaker 1>in secret, but now the lifelong spy will be making

0:07:13.840 --> 0:07:17.280
<v Speaker 1>a very public appearance. She'll be grilled about her secretive

0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:20.280
<v Speaker 1>work by the Senate Intelligence Committee and her confirmation hearing

0:07:20.320 --> 0:07:24.000
<v Speaker 1>to become CIA director. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the

0:07:24.000 --> 0:07:28.920
<v Speaker 1>White House is backing Haspell acting Director. Haspell is a

0:07:29.000 --> 0:07:34.200
<v Speaker 1>highly qualified, uniquely positioned individual to lead the CIA, and

0:07:34.320 --> 0:07:37.400
<v Speaker 1>we're very confident in her ability to answer the questions

0:07:37.400 --> 0:07:39.640
<v Speaker 1>that we know we're going to come. The focus of

0:07:39.640 --> 0:07:42.280
<v Speaker 1>the hearings is expected to be on Hospell's involvement in

0:07:42.280 --> 0:07:46.320
<v Speaker 1>alleged torture programs and her role in destroying videotapes of

0:07:46.440 --> 0:07:50.400
<v Speaker 1>interrogations of detainees. Joining me is Stephen Vladick, professor at

0:07:50.400 --> 0:07:53.000
<v Speaker 1>the University of Texas School of Law and co editor

0:07:53.040 --> 0:07:56.400
<v Speaker 1>in chief of Just Security. Steve you wrote a piece

0:07:56.480 --> 0:07:59.960
<v Speaker 1>in Just Security entitled the hospital nomination as a reference

0:08:00.080 --> 0:08:03.920
<v Speaker 1>end them on unaccountability. Would you explain why there have

0:08:04.040 --> 0:08:07.480
<v Speaker 1>been no legal remedies in cases of the torture of

0:08:07.640 --> 0:08:11.560
<v Speaker 1>US detainees. Sure, and I think you know planetts who

0:08:11.560 --> 0:08:15.720
<v Speaker 1>have tried to do the US government directly, US governed officers,

0:08:15.800 --> 0:08:19.120
<v Speaker 1>even US government contractors, based on claims that they were

0:08:19.160 --> 0:08:22.720
<v Speaker 1>tortured well in US custody have generally had those cases

0:08:22.720 --> 0:08:26.560
<v Speaker 1>thrown out for a wide range of procedural reasons, to

0:08:26.840 --> 0:08:28.240
<v Speaker 1>none of us have to do with the merits in

0:08:28.280 --> 0:08:30.720
<v Speaker 1>none of these cases, to the government, that the court

0:08:30.800 --> 0:08:33.800
<v Speaker 1>rule that these planets weren't tortured. In all these cases,

0:08:33.840 --> 0:08:37.520
<v Speaker 1>the court said there were some obstacle, whether the absence

0:08:37.520 --> 0:08:40.920
<v Speaker 1>of a cause of accent or whether the possibility that

0:08:41.040 --> 0:08:44.959
<v Speaker 1>the government defendant might have qualified immunity that would prevent

0:08:45.040 --> 0:08:47.560
<v Speaker 1>the court from that. You've decided on the question of

0:08:47.679 --> 0:08:51.000
<v Speaker 1>whether torture happened and whether these plaintiffs were abused, and

0:08:51.080 --> 0:08:55.280
<v Speaker 1>so collectively we've gotten to, you know, sixteen years after

0:08:55.320 --> 0:08:59.240
<v Speaker 1>this program started, with not a single judicial rule in

0:09:00.000 --> 0:09:02.760
<v Speaker 1>only in one way or the other that abuses that

0:09:02.800 --> 0:09:05.199
<v Speaker 1>were perpetrated against futilities in the US custody f n

0:09:05.200 --> 0:09:09.080
<v Speaker 1>I eleven were or were not torture. So why do

0:09:09.120 --> 0:09:13.080
<v Speaker 1>you see Haspell's confirmation hearing as a referendum on government

0:09:13.080 --> 0:09:19.000
<v Speaker 1>accountability rather than a referendum on hospitalstability. Well, I don't

0:09:19.000 --> 0:09:21.320
<v Speaker 1>think those are mutually exclusive, and the actually it gets both.

0:09:21.440 --> 0:09:24.720
<v Speaker 1>But you know, June, many of these opinions by courts

0:09:24.720 --> 0:09:28.760
<v Speaker 1>that have said it's not necessarily our place to jump

0:09:28.800 --> 0:09:32.040
<v Speaker 1>over the political branches have pointed to the far better

0:09:32.120 --> 0:09:35.160
<v Speaker 1>position that Congress is in when it comes to these

0:09:35.240 --> 0:09:39.880
<v Speaker 1>kinds of highly classified national security programs to find out

0:09:39.920 --> 0:09:43.479
<v Speaker 1>what happened, to make its own judgments, UM, and to

0:09:43.600 --> 0:09:47.080
<v Speaker 1>decide whether and how to punish those responsible and if

0:09:47.120 --> 0:09:49.240
<v Speaker 1>it's worth stressed. And one of the ways historically that

0:09:49.360 --> 0:09:55.120
<v Speaker 1>Congress has exercised its leverage and basically you know, effected

0:09:55.520 --> 0:10:00.959
<v Speaker 1>accountability is by refusing to confirm nominee who were involved

0:10:00.960 --> 0:10:04.160
<v Speaker 1>in prior abusive government programs. So you know, I think

0:10:04.280 --> 0:10:06.640
<v Speaker 1>that's why this here um tomorrow is no interesting because

0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:10.240
<v Speaker 1>it's not just about Hospital herself, who I said quite

0:10:10.240 --> 0:10:12.840
<v Speaker 1>clearly played a very central role in at least some

0:10:12.920 --> 0:10:17.560
<v Speaker 1>aspects of the CIA printation, detention interrogation program. It's also

0:10:17.640 --> 0:10:21.760
<v Speaker 1>about whether the political branches are going to use this process,

0:10:21.840 --> 0:10:24.760
<v Speaker 1>the confirmation process, to make up for I think many

0:10:24.800 --> 0:10:28.800
<v Speaker 1>of the deficits and shortcoming and how we have tried

0:10:28.840 --> 0:10:32.040
<v Speaker 1>to create a record of the abuses carried out as

0:10:32.120 --> 0:10:34.640
<v Speaker 1>part of the detention programs is not eleven. So you

0:10:34.720 --> 0:10:36.640
<v Speaker 1>have you looked at the way the sides are lining

0:10:36.760 --> 0:10:40.520
<v Speaker 1>up and whether Hasspel is likely to be confirmed. Yeah,

0:10:40.559 --> 0:10:42.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, I think it's going to be very close. Um.

0:10:42.640 --> 0:10:44.360
<v Speaker 1>One of the things that I think is really interesting

0:10:44.559 --> 0:10:47.199
<v Speaker 1>is there's a bit of a schism even on the

0:10:47.760 --> 0:10:50.040
<v Speaker 1>sort of pro hospital side. You know, there are some

0:10:50.120 --> 0:10:52.760
<v Speaker 1>folks who are saying, don't hold it against her that

0:10:52.880 --> 0:10:55.720
<v Speaker 1>she was part of these abuses at a much different

0:10:55.760 --> 0:10:57.520
<v Speaker 1>time in our history where I think a lot of

0:10:57.880 --> 0:10:59.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, things may have gone wrong. But then you

0:11:00.040 --> 0:11:03.680
<v Speaker 1>have folks like President Trump, uh, you know, Press Secretary

0:11:03.760 --> 0:11:07.160
<v Speaker 1>Sanders saying that you know, hass fule record and hasful

0:11:07.200 --> 0:11:10.679
<v Speaker 1>and involved in these abuses. Um, it's not it's actually

0:11:10.960 --> 0:11:14.400
<v Speaker 1>a reason to confirm her. That is not that that

0:11:14.440 --> 0:11:16.679
<v Speaker 1>seeds to be confirmed because of her role in we

0:11:16.720 --> 0:11:19.000
<v Speaker 1>have not despite them, thankly to you. I don't think

0:11:19.040 --> 0:11:21.280
<v Speaker 1>that's doing her any favors. And I actually think that,

0:11:21.440 --> 0:11:23.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, as the press reporters last week, they are

0:11:23.960 --> 0:11:26.839
<v Speaker 1>real concerned about whether they're enough votes and whether she

0:11:26.960 --> 0:11:30.920
<v Speaker 1>might withdraw, rather than risk of potential negative vote. So

0:11:31.160 --> 0:11:32.640
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be a very interesting to hearing to

0:11:32.679 --> 0:11:35.199
<v Speaker 1>keep an eye on. Let's turn to another subject you've

0:11:35.200 --> 0:11:39.440
<v Speaker 1>written about. You're very prolific. As we noticed, it seems

0:11:39.480 --> 0:11:42.480
<v Speaker 1>like just about the only thing that has remained consistent

0:11:42.520 --> 0:11:45.559
<v Speaker 1>in the Trump defense recently is the contention that the

0:11:45.679 --> 0:11:48.640
<v Speaker 1>president doesn't have to comply with a grand jury subpoena

0:11:48.720 --> 0:11:51.760
<v Speaker 1>to testify. So, to borrow the title of your column,

0:11:52.040 --> 0:11:57.480
<v Speaker 1>can the presidency trump a special counsel subpoena? Um? They

0:11:57.600 --> 0:12:01.559
<v Speaker 1>had a title, a little wordy. I like their en.

0:12:01.679 --> 0:12:05.040
<v Speaker 1>I think probably not. I mean, so, there's no Supreme

0:12:05.120 --> 0:12:08.120
<v Speaker 1>Court case squarely on point with regard to whether a

0:12:08.200 --> 0:12:10.959
<v Speaker 1>president can get compelled to testify before a grand jury.

0:12:11.480 --> 0:12:13.520
<v Speaker 1>But you know, the Supreme courts come pretty close. So

0:12:13.600 --> 0:12:17.200
<v Speaker 1>in the Watergate tapes case in four you know, an

0:12:17.320 --> 0:12:20.319
<v Speaker 1>eight to nothing court held that President Nixon could be

0:12:20.480 --> 0:12:23.839
<v Speaker 1>forced to comply with the subpoena ducas take them for

0:12:24.200 --> 0:12:27.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, specific evidence in that case, the Watergate tapes. Um.

0:12:27.760 --> 0:12:30.960
<v Speaker 1>You know, in the Clinton versus Jones case, the Supreme

0:12:31.000 --> 0:12:34.319
<v Speaker 1>Court expressly rejected the argument that Article two of the

0:12:34.400 --> 0:12:38.280
<v Speaker 1>Constitution generally pretends the president from having to bear the

0:12:38.400 --> 0:12:41.600
<v Speaker 1>burden of litigation, including in that case, you know, showing

0:12:41.679 --> 0:12:45.120
<v Speaker 1>up for a deposition. So you know, there's no square

0:12:45.160 --> 0:12:46.959
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court decision in June. But I do think that

0:12:47.040 --> 0:12:49.720
<v Speaker 1>if we actually got to a point where the Special

0:12:49.840 --> 0:12:52.440
<v Speaker 1>Council had a subpoena for a grand drate testiment from

0:12:52.440 --> 0:12:55.120
<v Speaker 1>the president, Um, you know, I think the president would

0:12:55.120 --> 0:12:57.160
<v Speaker 1>lose if you tried to challenge that in court, at

0:12:57.240 --> 0:12:59.960
<v Speaker 1>least facially. Now that's without regard you know. The president,

0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:02.599
<v Speaker 1>of course is free to get on the stand and

0:13:02.679 --> 0:13:05.480
<v Speaker 1>invoke whatever privileges or immunities he might think he has,

0:13:06.320 --> 0:13:09.480
<v Speaker 1>among them, perhaps most importantly his siphanomic rights, you know,

0:13:09.559 --> 0:13:12.800
<v Speaker 1>against self incrimination. That's a separate matter from whether he

0:13:12.880 --> 0:13:15.480
<v Speaker 1>can refuse to comply with the subpoena in the first place.

0:13:15.880 --> 0:13:18.280
<v Speaker 1>Let me ask you this, because I've been cute curious

0:13:18.280 --> 0:13:21.320
<v Speaker 1>about this. It seems obvious from everything that Giuliania said

0:13:21.360 --> 0:13:23.559
<v Speaker 1>and Trump has said and tweeted that there is not

0:13:23.720 --> 0:13:27.560
<v Speaker 1>going to be an interview. So in about a minute,

0:13:28.400 --> 0:13:31.319
<v Speaker 1>tell us why Mueller doesn't just serve him with a

0:13:31.360 --> 0:13:34.920
<v Speaker 1>grand jury subpoena. Now, so, I think, I mean certain

0:13:35.080 --> 0:13:37.480
<v Speaker 1>serv of the president with the subpoena is is really

0:13:37.640 --> 0:13:40.000
<v Speaker 1>fourth of the issue in a way that the Special

0:13:40.040 --> 0:13:42.000
<v Speaker 1>Council may not want to or New Tea tude. I

0:13:42.120 --> 0:13:44.400
<v Speaker 1>think you know, what the President says and what Rudy

0:13:44.440 --> 0:13:47.400
<v Speaker 1>Giuliani and other sir gets thing on television is one thing.

0:13:47.960 --> 0:13:51.440
<v Speaker 1>But until then last Muller is completely convinced that there's

0:13:51.480 --> 0:13:54.880
<v Speaker 1>no accommodation to be reached short of a grand jury subpoena.

0:13:55.200 --> 0:13:58.040
<v Speaker 1>I think it's in his interest, in everyone's interests to

0:13:58.520 --> 0:14:01.559
<v Speaker 1>presume that accommodation. No matter what the sound bites all

0:14:01.600 --> 0:14:05.040
<v Speaker 1>on television, we'll know that those of the comminations have failed.

0:14:05.520 --> 0:14:07.160
<v Speaker 1>If and when we get to a moment where Mala

0:14:07.240 --> 0:14:10.439
<v Speaker 1>really does actually if he's at a subpoena, well it's

0:14:10.480 --> 0:14:13.240
<v Speaker 1>going to be very interesting, particularly with Rudy Giuliani in

0:14:13.280 --> 0:14:16.079
<v Speaker 1>this because sometimes whether whether it's a he's pursuing a

0:14:16.280 --> 0:14:20.920
<v Speaker 1>legal strategy or a public relations strategy. More to come. Thanks,

0:14:22.960 --> 0:14:26.200
<v Speaker 1>Thank you, Steve. That's Steven Vladick, professor at the University

0:14:26.240 --> 0:14:28.920
<v Speaker 1>of Texas School of Law and co editor in chief

0:14:28.960 --> 0:14:32.600
<v Speaker 1>of Just Security. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:14:33.000 --> 0:14:37.000
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:14:37.120 --> 0:14:41.000
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:14:41.480 --> 0:14:45.320
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Ye