1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,440
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,000
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,439
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. A Supreme Court

6
00:00:22,520 --> 00:00:25,439
Speaker 1: justice has cleared the way for a congressional voting map

7
00:00:25,480 --> 00:00:28,880
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania that could give Democrats a boost as they

8
00:00:28,880 --> 00:00:31,000
Speaker 1: try to take control of the US House in the

9
00:00:31,040 --> 00:00:35,960
Speaker 1: November elections. Justice Samuel Alito left in force a Pennsylvania

10
00:00:36,040 --> 00:00:40,760
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruling requiring the Republican controlled legislature to draw

11
00:00:40,880 --> 00:00:44,839
Speaker 1: new lines for approval by the Democratic governor. The Pennsylvania

12
00:00:44,880 --> 00:00:48,040
Speaker 1: Supreme Court had said the old map violated the state

13
00:00:48,080 --> 00:00:52,479
Speaker 1: constitution because it was too skewed toward Republicans. Joining me,

14
00:00:52,520 --> 00:00:55,160
Speaker 1: as an expert on election law, Josh Douglas of the

15
00:00:55,240 --> 00:00:59,440
Speaker 1: University of Kentucky Law School, Josh, Republicans really faced an

16
00:00:59,520 --> 00:01:02,840
Speaker 1: uphill adeline trying to get the Supreme Court to intervene

17
00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:07,440
Speaker 1: explain why. Yeah, And they did face an uphill battle,

18
00:01:07,560 --> 00:01:11,200
Speaker 1: and that was because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision was

19
00:01:11,280 --> 00:01:14,759
Speaker 1: based solely on the Pennsylvania Constitution UH and in fact

20
00:01:14,800 --> 00:01:18,160
Speaker 1: and to order. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that it

21
00:01:18,240 --> 00:01:21,400
Speaker 1: was deciding the issues solely based on Pennsylvania law and

22
00:01:21,400 --> 00:01:24,640
Speaker 1: the Pennsylvania Constitution, And typically the U. S. Supreme Court

23
00:01:24,680 --> 00:01:28,959
Speaker 1: has no authority or jurisdiction here issues involving solely state law.

24
00:01:29,720 --> 00:01:32,840
Speaker 1: So the request for a stay went to Justice Alito,

25
00:01:32,959 --> 00:01:37,400
Speaker 1: who hears emergency requests from Pennsylvania. What goes into a

26
00:01:37,560 --> 00:01:41,240
Speaker 1: justice's calculations when he decides not to even refer the

27
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:44,720
Speaker 1: case to other members of the court, You know, that

28
00:01:44,800 --> 00:01:47,960
Speaker 1: was a little bit surprising. After Justice Alito did ask

29
00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:51,800
Speaker 1: for a sponse to the stay motion, many people thought

30
00:01:51,800 --> 00:01:53,840
Speaker 1: that he would refer to at least to the full Court.

31
00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:57,280
Speaker 1: I think what goes into the decision is simply whether

32
00:01:57,320 --> 00:01:59,600
Speaker 1: he thinks that there would be five votes UH to

33
00:01:59,760 --> 00:02:02,320
Speaker 1: issue you to stay. And if he's not even convinced

34
00:02:02,640 --> 00:02:05,120
Speaker 1: to issue to stay, then I think he surmised that

35
00:02:05,200 --> 00:02:07,760
Speaker 1: the other justices will be very unlikely to do so

36
00:02:07,840 --> 00:02:12,520
Speaker 1: as well. How significant is this Pennsylvania Court ruling for

37
00:02:12,639 --> 00:02:17,160
Speaker 1: the Democrats in the elections. I think it's very significant

38
00:02:17,160 --> 00:02:20,920
Speaker 1: on a couple of levels. On the election You're going

39
00:02:20,960 --> 00:02:23,160
Speaker 1: to have a new map in Pennsylvania that's going to

40
00:02:23,240 --> 00:02:25,360
Speaker 1: be a lot more fair. That is to say, it's

41
00:02:25,360 --> 00:02:28,639
Speaker 1: going to be a lot less hued in the Republicans favor,

42
00:02:29,040 --> 00:02:32,120
Speaker 1: which is what the court found on this map. So

43
00:02:32,160 --> 00:02:34,840
Speaker 1: that's important for the short term. For the long term,

44
00:02:34,919 --> 00:02:37,640
Speaker 1: I think it's important because it demonstrates the power of

45
00:02:37,760 --> 00:02:41,120
Speaker 1: state constitutions to do a lot of work in protecting

46
00:02:41,200 --> 00:02:44,240
Speaker 1: voting rights. Uh. And so regardless of what the Supreme

47
00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:46,880
Speaker 1: Court does and the other part of the gerrymandering cases,

48
00:02:47,200 --> 00:02:50,320
Speaker 1: do releas have one path for people who want to

49
00:02:50,480 --> 00:02:53,760
Speaker 1: oppose partisan gerrymandering by going to state courts and invokes

50
00:02:53,800 --> 00:02:56,920
Speaker 1: in the state constitution. So, and the Republicans won the

51
00:02:57,040 --> 00:03:00,080
Speaker 1: challenge to the map in federal court. So you think

52
00:03:00,080 --> 00:03:04,040
Speaker 1: that the next thing will be more challenges to jerrymandering

53
00:03:04,120 --> 00:03:07,440
Speaker 1: in state courts? I do. I mean it will partially

54
00:03:07,480 --> 00:03:09,600
Speaker 1: depend on what the U. S. Supreme Court does in

55
00:03:09,600 --> 00:03:13,360
Speaker 1: the Wisconsin and the Maryland cases on partisan jerrymandering that

56
00:03:13,360 --> 00:03:17,120
Speaker 1: it's hearing this term, um, but assume it. Let's say

57
00:03:17,160 --> 00:03:20,000
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court rejects those challenges or at least

58
00:03:20,160 --> 00:03:23,520
Speaker 1: narrows their scope. I think you could see more challenges

59
00:03:23,560 --> 00:03:28,799
Speaker 1: in other states using the state constitutions as more protective

60
00:03:29,080 --> 00:03:33,280
Speaker 1: of voting rights and more skeptical of extreme partisan jerry manders.

61
00:03:33,760 --> 00:03:37,240
Speaker 1: Republicans still haven't given up the state Senate president and

62
00:03:37,280 --> 00:03:40,760
Speaker 1: the state House speaker trying to block the Court's decision.

63
00:03:40,800 --> 00:03:44,920
Speaker 1: The Pennsylvania Courts decision other ways. They file papers with

64
00:03:45,040 --> 00:03:49,360
Speaker 1: the High Court to invalidate the votes of two justices.

65
00:03:49,800 --> 00:03:54,120
Speaker 1: Explain the basis there, well, I guess they're they're saying

66
00:03:54,200 --> 00:03:58,839
Speaker 1: that the to these two Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices are

67
00:03:58,920 --> 00:04:02,280
Speaker 1: biased and should have for used themselves. Um. I think

68
00:04:02,320 --> 00:04:05,640
Speaker 1: that's a pretty long shot argument, and there's really no

69
00:04:05,720 --> 00:04:09,240
Speaker 1: basis for doing so. I didn't find it strange that,

70
00:04:09,360 --> 00:04:11,440
Speaker 1: you know, normally we think of the U Supreme Courts

71
00:04:11,440 --> 00:04:14,400
Speaker 1: decisions as final, and and yet they're still trying to

72
00:04:14,440 --> 00:04:18,159
Speaker 1: attack it, even after the Supreme Court refused to stay

73
00:04:18,520 --> 00:04:21,440
Speaker 1: potensively in the Supreme Court position. So they're they're arguing

74
00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:24,160
Speaker 1: that these two justice were biased. I don't think it's

75
00:04:24,160 --> 00:04:27,000
Speaker 1: going to go anywhere If the Republicans don't get a

76
00:04:27,040 --> 00:04:30,000
Speaker 1: map to the governor by Thursday of next week. The

77
00:04:30,040 --> 00:04:33,159
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania Supreme Court said it would adopt its own map,

78
00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:37,479
Speaker 1: and it's appointed Nate Personally, who's a Stanford law professor

79
00:04:37,520 --> 00:04:40,400
Speaker 1: and a redistricting expert that we've had on many times.

80
00:04:41,120 --> 00:04:44,120
Speaker 1: Do you think voting maps should be drawn by experts

81
00:04:44,279 --> 00:04:48,000
Speaker 1: rather than legislatures. Well, I think it's a much better

82
00:04:48,120 --> 00:04:51,000
Speaker 1: process to have an expert who knows what he or

83
00:04:51,040 --> 00:04:54,400
Speaker 1: she is doing, and certainly Nate Personally has done this

84
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:57,320
Speaker 1: before and is very good at it. That's much better

85
00:04:57,360 --> 00:05:00,800
Speaker 1: than having the politicians draw the lines. There's you know,

86
00:05:00,880 --> 00:05:04,640
Speaker 1: other paths, which include independent redistricting commissions, which some states

87
00:05:04,640 --> 00:05:07,640
Speaker 1: are using, and that's an also good way. Anything to

88
00:05:07,640 --> 00:05:11,040
Speaker 1: get the politicians out of the drawing process, in my view,

89
00:05:11,240 --> 00:05:14,400
Speaker 1: is a good thing because there have incentives to view

90
00:05:14,440 --> 00:05:16,560
Speaker 1: the mass in their favors, and we see that both

91
00:05:16,600 --> 00:05:20,520
Speaker 1: political parties do it. The Republicans have said the Court

92
00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:23,839
Speaker 1: set them up because it failed. It gave them less

93
00:05:23,839 --> 00:05:26,520
Speaker 1: than three weeks to redraw the congressional lines, and it

94
00:05:26,600 --> 00:05:30,280
Speaker 1: didn't issue a full opinion in the case. What do

95
00:05:30,320 --> 00:05:34,320
Speaker 1: you what's your take on those arguments. Well, you know,

96
00:05:34,360 --> 00:05:38,080
Speaker 1: I think the Court was acting quickly because we need

97
00:05:38,160 --> 00:05:41,800
Speaker 1: new match in place for people to know web districts

98
00:05:41,800 --> 00:05:46,479
Speaker 1: they're in and candidates to file their nomination papers. Um.

99
00:05:46,600 --> 00:05:48,320
Speaker 1: And so I do think you know there was a

100
00:05:48,360 --> 00:05:53,279
Speaker 1: reason for the Court to replier the legislature to act quickly, um,

101
00:05:53,360 --> 00:05:55,480
Speaker 1: in terms of not issuing an opinion. Yet I do

102
00:05:55,560 --> 00:05:57,640
Speaker 1: think it's a little strange, and it would be helpful

103
00:05:58,560 --> 00:06:01,360
Speaker 1: for the Pennsylvania Stream Court to issue it's full reasoning

104
00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:03,880
Speaker 1: as opposed to just an order. I don't think that

105
00:06:03,960 --> 00:06:07,880
Speaker 1: impacts what the legislature is tasked to do in terms

106
00:06:07,880 --> 00:06:10,000
Speaker 1: of drawing a new map. It knows that the map

107
00:06:10,040 --> 00:06:14,640
Speaker 1: it drew was way too skewed politically, and so it's

108
00:06:14,680 --> 00:06:17,320
Speaker 1: task is to not do so the next time around.

109
00:06:18,520 --> 00:06:21,840
Speaker 1: You mentioned the two Gerryman daring cases from Wisconsin and

110
00:06:21,920 --> 00:06:25,760
Speaker 1: Maryland before the Supreme Court explain the broad issues there.

111
00:06:27,080 --> 00:06:30,280
Speaker 1: So the wisconsinant case, it involves a statewide challenge for

112
00:06:30,360 --> 00:06:32,760
Speaker 1: the map as a whole, and it's using this new

113
00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:37,120
Speaker 1: standard called the efficiency gap, which essentially measures the partisans

114
00:06:37,240 --> 00:06:40,839
Speaker 1: view in the map as a whole. The problem is

115
00:06:40,880 --> 00:06:43,160
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court hasn't been able to find a

116
00:06:43,200 --> 00:06:47,440
Speaker 1: good standard for testing when politics has infiltrated the mast

117
00:06:47,480 --> 00:06:50,279
Speaker 1: drawing process too much. The Maryland case is a little

118
00:06:50,320 --> 00:06:53,160
Speaker 1: bit different because it's challenged in just one district in

119
00:06:53,200 --> 00:06:55,159
Speaker 1: the state as opposed to the map as a whole,

120
00:06:55,600 --> 00:06:58,719
Speaker 1: and it's invoking the First Amendment, something that Justice Kennedy

121
00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:01,839
Speaker 1: has said he might be favorable in terms of looking

122
00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:04,560
Speaker 1: to the root out partisan jerry manders. So they have

123
00:07:04,600 --> 00:07:08,719
Speaker 1: different approaches. The Wisconsin cases broader and the Maryland cases

124
00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:12,240
Speaker 1: narrower and in different legal uh. Folk Guy as well.

125
00:07:12,840 --> 00:07:17,640
Speaker 1: Even if the Supreme Court says to the Wisconsin legislators,

126
00:07:17,720 --> 00:07:20,120
Speaker 1: you have to redraw this map and they do find

127
00:07:20,120 --> 00:07:24,240
Speaker 1: that it was partisan gerrymandering, would they say you have

128
00:07:24,320 --> 00:07:28,520
Speaker 1: to do it before the mid term elections. It's really

129
00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:31,520
Speaker 1: going to depend on when the decision comes out. You know,

130
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:33,800
Speaker 1: if we don't have a decision until the end of

131
00:07:33,840 --> 00:07:36,559
Speaker 1: the tournam in June, then it might be very hard

132
00:07:36,680 --> 00:07:39,320
Speaker 1: to get a new map in place before the election.

133
00:07:39,480 --> 00:07:42,680
Speaker 1: So you might have one more election cycle under a

134
00:07:42,720 --> 00:07:45,960
Speaker 1: map that is unconstitutional. We've seen that happen before, so

135
00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:50,400
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be unprecedented. It certainly unfortunate, though, where just

136
00:07:50,440 --> 00:07:54,560
Speaker 1: because election cycles happen and the interests of time, a

137
00:07:54,640 --> 00:07:57,800
Speaker 1: map has to stay in place for one more cycle. Yeah,

138
00:07:57,880 --> 00:08:00,120
Speaker 1: it's not often that a court tells you you have

139
00:08:00,160 --> 00:08:02,160
Speaker 1: a just a few weeks to change the whole map.

140
00:08:02,640 --> 00:08:05,880
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for being here, Josh. That's Josh Douglass

141
00:08:05,880 --> 00:08:08,960
Speaker 1: of the University of Kentucky Law School. That current Pennsylvania

142
00:08:09,040 --> 00:08:12,360
Speaker 1: map includes the sprawling seventh District, which you might have

143
00:08:12,400 --> 00:08:17,600
Speaker 1: heard critics say resembles the cartoon character Goofy kicking Donald Duck.

144
00:08:21,320 --> 00:08:24,960
Speaker 1: The saga of the dueling memos continues. President Donald Trump

145
00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:28,800
Speaker 1: has received the Democratic memo countering the Republican memo, which

146
00:08:28,840 --> 00:08:33,079
Speaker 1: claims FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the surveillance of

147
00:08:33,120 --> 00:08:37,000
Speaker 1: a former Trump campaign advisor. Trump now has five days

148
00:08:37,080 --> 00:08:40,320
Speaker 1: to decide whether to release it, make redactions, or block it.

149
00:08:40,679 --> 00:08:44,040
Speaker 1: He backed disclosure of the GOP memo, and he classified it.

150
00:08:44,520 --> 00:08:46,800
Speaker 1: The man at the center of the controversy over the

151
00:08:46,800 --> 00:08:50,280
Speaker 1: surveillance warrant, Carter Page, said today in an interview with

152
00:08:50,320 --> 00:08:53,599
Speaker 1: ABC News is George Stephanopolis that the work he was

153
00:08:53,679 --> 00:08:56,160
Speaker 1: doing for the Kremlin was above board and part of

154
00:08:56,200 --> 00:08:59,400
Speaker 1: a G twenty conference. He also claimed that he's never

155
00:08:59,440 --> 00:09:03,400
Speaker 1: spoken to President Trump in his life. I never spoke

156
00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:05,480
Speaker 1: with him since I never spoke with him any time

157
00:09:05,520 --> 00:09:07,520
Speaker 1: in my life. You've never spoken to Donald Trump in

158
00:09:07,520 --> 00:09:10,680
Speaker 1: your life? No email, no text, nothing like that. Never.

159
00:09:11,679 --> 00:09:14,920
Speaker 1: My guest is Jimmy Grula, professor at the University of

160
00:09:14,920 --> 00:09:17,560
Speaker 1: Notre Dame Law School. Jimmy, let me ask you for

161
00:09:17,760 --> 00:09:22,559
Speaker 1: your you know, your reaction to hearing from Carter Page

162
00:09:22,640 --> 00:09:26,600
Speaker 1: and who says he never spoke to President Trump. He's

163
00:09:26,640 --> 00:09:33,040
Speaker 1: been distanced by the Trump administration. From the administration, is

164
00:09:33,080 --> 00:09:36,800
Speaker 1: it odd that they're using a surveillance memo about him

165
00:09:37,240 --> 00:09:39,959
Speaker 1: to fight this fight? Well, a couple of things that

166
00:09:40,200 --> 00:09:45,679
Speaker 1: it's certainly odd that Carter Page has never spoken with

167
00:09:45,679 --> 00:09:49,520
Speaker 1: with President Trump, despite the fact that President Trump, when

168
00:09:49,520 --> 00:09:54,480
Speaker 1: he was candidate Trump, UH selected Carter Page to be

169
00:09:54,720 --> 00:10:00,360
Speaker 1: a foreign affairs advisor to UH to then candidate candidate Trump.

170
00:10:00,840 --> 00:10:04,400
Speaker 1: And so it seems rather strange that he would that

171
00:10:04,720 --> 00:10:08,920
Speaker 1: Trump would appoint someone to such a prestigious position in

172
00:10:08,960 --> 00:10:15,120
Speaker 1: the campaign, you know, foreign advisor without ever having formally

173
00:10:15,240 --> 00:10:17,679
Speaker 1: met met the person. So so I find that that

174
00:10:17,720 --> 00:10:24,040
Speaker 1: claim curious at the least. The Intelligence Committee voted unanimously

175
00:10:24,160 --> 00:10:26,640
Speaker 1: to release the memo. What's your guests as to what

176
00:10:26,760 --> 00:10:31,600
Speaker 1: the president will do? Well, I'm hoping that that he

177
00:10:31,640 --> 00:10:34,880
Speaker 1: will treat the Democratic Memo the way that he treated

178
00:10:35,120 --> 00:10:39,600
Speaker 1: the Republican Memo, the Neonist Memo, and release it in

179
00:10:39,679 --> 00:10:44,440
Speaker 1: its entirety without any redactions. But that's the concern. I

180
00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:47,520
Speaker 1: think the concerned by the Democrats is whether or not

181
00:10:47,840 --> 00:10:50,240
Speaker 1: a the President is going to release the memo at all,

182
00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:53,000
Speaker 1: and be if he releases the memo is going to

183
00:10:53,080 --> 00:10:58,720
Speaker 1: be released with substantial redactions and sections completely blocked out.

184
00:10:59,200 --> 00:11:01,679
Speaker 1: And if that's the case, then then it really kind

185
00:11:01,720 --> 00:11:06,000
Speaker 1: of undercuts it will under cut his claim of transparency

186
00:11:06,000 --> 00:11:08,679
Speaker 1: and newness, his claim of transparency and wanting to get

187
00:11:08,679 --> 00:11:12,440
Speaker 1: to the bottom of the issues respect with respect to

188
00:11:12,600 --> 00:11:16,840
Speaker 1: the device and warrants with respect to Carter Page. The

189
00:11:16,920 --> 00:11:20,960
Speaker 1: House could Committee could then seek a very rare closed

190
00:11:20,960 --> 00:11:24,160
Speaker 1: door vote of all the House members to over ride

191
00:11:24,200 --> 00:11:28,040
Speaker 1: the president and still release it. What's the likelihood that

192
00:11:28,040 --> 00:11:32,880
Speaker 1: that might work. I think probably zero? Zero, Yeah, I

193
00:11:33,200 --> 00:11:35,800
Speaker 1: think zero. I mean, I don't have any confidence that

194
00:11:35,800 --> 00:11:39,280
Speaker 1: that there would be a majority of Republicans that that

195
00:11:39,320 --> 00:11:42,280
Speaker 1: would um seek to override the president. I mean, so

196
00:11:42,320 --> 00:11:45,160
Speaker 1: if the President decides not to release it for for

197
00:11:45,200 --> 00:11:48,959
Speaker 1: whatever reason, I have no confidence. So there would be

198
00:11:49,000 --> 00:11:52,920
Speaker 1: a majority of Republican members of Congress of the House

199
00:11:53,240 --> 00:11:56,960
Speaker 1: that would override or seek to override the president's will

200
00:11:57,000 --> 00:12:00,280
Speaker 1: on the on the issue. Now. Separately, former ye How

201
00:12:00,360 --> 00:12:04,280
Speaker 1: strategists Steve Bannon is planning to skip a closed door

202
00:12:04,400 --> 00:12:08,000
Speaker 1: interview with the committee today despite being subpoena to appear.

203
00:12:08,080 --> 00:12:10,439
Speaker 1: That's according to two people familiar with the matter in

204
00:12:10,480 --> 00:12:14,920
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News, he has talked to mother. What does this show.

205
00:12:15,000 --> 00:12:17,440
Speaker 1: Is there a lack of fear that the committee will

206
00:12:17,520 --> 00:12:20,319
Speaker 1: do anything? Is it a disrespect for a committee that's

207
00:12:20,320 --> 00:12:24,280
Speaker 1: in disarray? Well, it could be. You know, it's certainly

208
00:12:24,440 --> 00:12:28,520
Speaker 1: very telling that the despite the fact that he has

209
00:12:29,120 --> 00:12:33,160
Speaker 1: been requested or that the committee has requested to have

210
00:12:33,320 --> 00:12:35,720
Speaker 1: him speaking for the committee, that now this is the

211
00:12:36,400 --> 00:12:38,480
Speaker 1: you know that that basically he's kind of thumbing their

212
00:12:38,520 --> 00:12:41,760
Speaker 1: nose at them, unless you know, there's some compelling reason

213
00:12:42,280 --> 00:12:45,079
Speaker 1: why he's unable to appear. But but if there is

214
00:12:45,120 --> 00:12:48,160
Speaker 1: such a compelling reason, it hasn't been articulated either by

215
00:12:48,360 --> 00:12:51,600
Speaker 1: by banning himself or by any members of the of

216
00:12:51,679 --> 00:12:55,480
Speaker 1: the committee. So perhaps it does suggest that, as he stated,

217
00:12:55,679 --> 00:12:59,080
Speaker 1: it's a committee in disarray, it's a committee that perhaps

218
00:12:59,160 --> 00:13:02,480
Speaker 1: has lost because it's become so partisan that has lost

219
00:13:02,520 --> 00:13:06,360
Speaker 1: all credibility, and maybe a Bannon doesn't think it's deserving

220
00:13:06,400 --> 00:13:11,160
Speaker 1: of his time. How often do these House committees actually

221
00:13:11,160 --> 00:13:14,520
Speaker 1: go forward and if someone refuses a subpoena try to

222
00:13:14,679 --> 00:13:17,600
Speaker 1: enforce it by seeking you know, going to a judge

223
00:13:17,640 --> 00:13:19,840
Speaker 1: and trying to get contempt orders. How often do they

224
00:13:19,840 --> 00:13:23,800
Speaker 1: actually push these issues? I think it's rare. I think typically,

225
00:13:24,040 --> 00:13:26,840
Speaker 1: of course, going to the court is going to be

226
00:13:27,400 --> 00:13:31,160
Speaker 1: an action of last resort, not first resort. And so

227
00:13:31,480 --> 00:13:34,000
Speaker 1: I think that there will be negotiations behind the scenes

228
00:13:34,040 --> 00:13:37,000
Speaker 1: to find out what's the objection to appearing me for

229
00:13:37,040 --> 00:13:40,480
Speaker 1: the committee, and can those objections or concerns be allayed

230
00:13:40,720 --> 00:13:44,000
Speaker 1: in some way short of going to the to a court.

231
00:13:44,480 --> 00:13:46,800
Speaker 1: And and further, I think on the other side, I

232
00:13:46,800 --> 00:13:50,360
Speaker 1: think courts are reluctant to intervene in these types of

233
00:13:50,679 --> 00:13:53,400
Speaker 1: and these types of matters and leave it to the

234
00:13:53,920 --> 00:13:57,360
Speaker 1: to to Congress to try to resolve resolve the matter

235
00:13:57,720 --> 00:14:02,200
Speaker 1: itself very quickly. President Trump's lawyers, several of them, have

236
00:14:02,240 --> 00:14:05,600
Speaker 1: advised him against a wide ranging interview with Special Counsel

237
00:14:05,679 --> 00:14:08,920
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller. According to The New York Times, aids and

238
00:14:09,000 --> 00:14:12,800
Speaker 1: lawyers believe Mueller might be unwilling to subpoena Trump and

239
00:14:13,920 --> 00:14:17,840
Speaker 1: spark a White House battle. Do you, in about forty

240
00:14:17,960 --> 00:14:20,680
Speaker 1: five seconds, do you have any doubt that the Special

241
00:14:20,680 --> 00:14:24,400
Speaker 1: Counsel will subpoena Trump? Well, I think that that of course,

242
00:14:24,440 --> 00:14:27,240
Speaker 1: first they're they're going to try to gain his co operations,

243
00:14:27,280 --> 00:14:30,400
Speaker 1: see if they if he will just respond positively to

244
00:14:30,520 --> 00:14:35,040
Speaker 1: a request to appear before before Bob Muller. And and

245
00:14:35,080 --> 00:14:37,320
Speaker 1: again the question is going to be if the answer

246
00:14:37,320 --> 00:14:39,320
Speaker 1: to that is no, then what are the concerns and

247
00:14:39,560 --> 00:14:42,960
Speaker 1: can those concerns be addressed in some way that's that's

248
00:14:42,960 --> 00:14:45,320
Speaker 1: acceptable to both parties. But I think at the end

249
00:14:45,320 --> 00:14:48,400
Speaker 1: of the day, if there's no agreement, I think that

250
00:14:48,480 --> 00:14:50,640
Speaker 1: the Muller will go the next step and and try

251
00:14:50,680 --> 00:14:53,960
Speaker 1: to force the president's hand through through the courts. Thanks

252
00:14:54,000 --> 00:14:57,920
Speaker 1: so much. That's Jimmy Rule, a professor at the University

253
00:14:57,960 --> 00:15:01,120
Speaker 1: of Notre Dame Law School. Thanks for listening to the

254
00:15:01,120 --> 00:15:04,520
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the

255
00:15:04,560 --> 00:15:08,440
Speaker 1: show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com

256
00:15:08,520 --> 00:15:12,720
Speaker 1: slash podcast. I am June Brosso. This is Bloomberg