WEBVTT - Justice Alito Leaves PA Voting Districts in Place

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 --> 0:00:13.440
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.000
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.439
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. A Supreme Court

0:00:22.520 --> 0:00:25.439
<v Speaker 1>justice has cleared the way for a congressional voting map

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:28.880
<v Speaker 1>in Pennsylvania that could give Democrats a boost as they

0:00:28.880 --> 0:00:31.000
<v Speaker 1>try to take control of the US House in the

0:00:31.040 --> 0:00:35.960
<v Speaker 1>November elections. Justice Samuel Alito left in force a Pennsylvania

0:00:36.040 --> 0:00:40.760
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court ruling requiring the Republican controlled legislature to draw

0:00:40.880 --> 0:00:44.839
<v Speaker 1>new lines for approval by the Democratic governor. The Pennsylvania

0:00:44.880 --> 0:00:48.040
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court had said the old map violated the state

0:00:48.080 --> 0:00:52.479
<v Speaker 1>constitution because it was too skewed toward Republicans. Joining me,

0:00:52.520 --> 0:00:55.160
<v Speaker 1>as an expert on election law, Josh Douglas of the

0:00:55.240 --> 0:00:59.440
<v Speaker 1>University of Kentucky Law School, Josh, Republicans really faced an

0:00:59.520 --> 0:01:02.840
<v Speaker 1>uphill adeline trying to get the Supreme Court to intervene

0:01:03.000 --> 0:01:07.440
<v Speaker 1>explain why. Yeah, And they did face an uphill battle,

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:11.200
<v Speaker 1>and that was because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision was

0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:14.759
<v Speaker 1>based solely on the Pennsylvania Constitution UH and in fact

0:01:14.800 --> 0:01:18.160
<v Speaker 1>and to order. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that it

0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:21.400
<v Speaker 1>was deciding the issues solely based on Pennsylvania law and

0:01:21.400 --> 0:01:24.640
<v Speaker 1>the Pennsylvania Constitution, And typically the U. S. Supreme Court

0:01:24.680 --> 0:01:28.959
<v Speaker 1>has no authority or jurisdiction here issues involving solely state law.

0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:32.840
<v Speaker 1>So the request for a stay went to Justice Alito,

0:01:32.959 --> 0:01:37.400
<v Speaker 1>who hears emergency requests from Pennsylvania. What goes into a

0:01:37.560 --> 0:01:41.240
<v Speaker 1>justice's calculations when he decides not to even refer the

0:01:41.280 --> 0:01:44.720
<v Speaker 1>case to other members of the court, You know, that

0:01:44.800 --> 0:01:47.960
<v Speaker 1>was a little bit surprising. After Justice Alito did ask

0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:51.800
<v Speaker 1>for a sponse to the stay motion, many people thought

0:01:51.800 --> 0:01:53.840
<v Speaker 1>that he would refer to at least to the full Court.

0:01:54.440 --> 0:01:57.280
<v Speaker 1>I think what goes into the decision is simply whether

0:01:57.320 --> 0:01:59.600
<v Speaker 1>he thinks that there would be five votes UH to

0:01:59.760 --> 0:02:02.320
<v Speaker 1>issue you to stay. And if he's not even convinced

0:02:02.640 --> 0:02:05.120
<v Speaker 1>to issue to stay, then I think he surmised that

0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:07.760
<v Speaker 1>the other justices will be very unlikely to do so

0:02:07.840 --> 0:02:12.520
<v Speaker 1>as well. How significant is this Pennsylvania Court ruling for

0:02:12.639 --> 0:02:17.160
<v Speaker 1>the Democrats in the elections. I think it's very significant

0:02:17.160 --> 0:02:20.920
<v Speaker 1>on a couple of levels. On the election You're going

0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:23.160
<v Speaker 1>to have a new map in Pennsylvania that's going to

0:02:23.240 --> 0:02:25.360
<v Speaker 1>be a lot more fair. That is to say, it's

0:02:25.360 --> 0:02:28.639
<v Speaker 1>going to be a lot less hued in the Republicans favor,

0:02:29.040 --> 0:02:32.120
<v Speaker 1>which is what the court found on this map. So

0:02:32.160 --> 0:02:34.840
<v Speaker 1>that's important for the short term. For the long term,

0:02:34.919 --> 0:02:37.640
<v Speaker 1>I think it's important because it demonstrates the power of

0:02:37.760 --> 0:02:41.120
<v Speaker 1>state constitutions to do a lot of work in protecting

0:02:41.200 --> 0:02:44.240
<v Speaker 1>voting rights. Uh. And so regardless of what the Supreme

0:02:44.280 --> 0:02:46.880
<v Speaker 1>Court does and the other part of the gerrymandering cases,

0:02:47.200 --> 0:02:50.320
<v Speaker 1>do releas have one path for people who want to

0:02:50.480 --> 0:02:53.760
<v Speaker 1>oppose partisan gerrymandering by going to state courts and invokes

0:02:53.800 --> 0:02:56.920
<v Speaker 1>in the state constitution. So, and the Republicans won the

0:02:57.040 --> 0:03:00.080
<v Speaker 1>challenge to the map in federal court. So you think

0:03:00.080 --> 0:03:04.040
<v Speaker 1>that the next thing will be more challenges to jerrymandering

0:03:04.120 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 1>in state courts? I do. I mean it will partially

0:03:07.480 --> 0:03:09.600
<v Speaker 1>depend on what the U. S. Supreme Court does in

0:03:09.600 --> 0:03:13.360
<v Speaker 1>the Wisconsin and the Maryland cases on partisan jerrymandering that

0:03:13.360 --> 0:03:17.120
<v Speaker 1>it's hearing this term, um, but assume it. Let's say

0:03:17.160 --> 0:03:20.000
<v Speaker 1>that the Supreme Court rejects those challenges or at least

0:03:20.160 --> 0:03:23.520
<v Speaker 1>narrows their scope. I think you could see more challenges

0:03:23.560 --> 0:03:28.799
<v Speaker 1>in other states using the state constitutions as more protective

0:03:29.080 --> 0:03:33.280
<v Speaker 1>of voting rights and more skeptical of extreme partisan jerry manders.

0:03:33.760 --> 0:03:37.240
<v Speaker 1>Republicans still haven't given up the state Senate president and

0:03:37.280 --> 0:03:40.760
<v Speaker 1>the state House speaker trying to block the Court's decision.

0:03:40.800 --> 0:03:44.920
<v Speaker 1>The Pennsylvania Courts decision other ways. They file papers with

0:03:45.040 --> 0:03:49.360
<v Speaker 1>the High Court to invalidate the votes of two justices.

0:03:49.800 --> 0:03:54.120
<v Speaker 1>Explain the basis there, well, I guess they're they're saying

0:03:54.200 --> 0:03:58.839
<v Speaker 1>that the to these two Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices are

0:03:58.920 --> 0:04:02.280
<v Speaker 1>biased and should have for used themselves. Um. I think

0:04:02.320 --> 0:04:05.640
<v Speaker 1>that's a pretty long shot argument, and there's really no

0:04:05.720 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 1>basis for doing so. I didn't find it strange that,

0:04:09.360 --> 0:04:11.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, normally we think of the U Supreme Courts

0:04:11.440 --> 0:04:14.400
<v Speaker 1>decisions as final, and and yet they're still trying to

0:04:14.440 --> 0:04:18.159
<v Speaker 1>attack it, even after the Supreme Court refused to stay

0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:21.440
<v Speaker 1>potensively in the Supreme Court position. So they're they're arguing

0:04:21.480 --> 0:04:24.160
<v Speaker 1>that these two justice were biased. I don't think it's

0:04:24.160 --> 0:04:27.000
<v Speaker 1>going to go anywhere If the Republicans don't get a

0:04:27.040 --> 0:04:30.000
<v Speaker 1>map to the governor by Thursday of next week. The

0:04:30.040 --> 0:04:33.159
<v Speaker 1>Pennsylvania Supreme Court said it would adopt its own map,

0:04:33.600 --> 0:04:37.479
<v Speaker 1>and it's appointed Nate Personally, who's a Stanford law professor

0:04:37.520 --> 0:04:40.400
<v Speaker 1>and a redistricting expert that we've had on many times.

0:04:41.120 --> 0:04:44.120
<v Speaker 1>Do you think voting maps should be drawn by experts

0:04:44.279 --> 0:04:48.000
<v Speaker 1>rather than legislatures. Well, I think it's a much better

0:04:48.120 --> 0:04:51.000
<v Speaker 1>process to have an expert who knows what he or

0:04:51.040 --> 0:04:54.400
<v Speaker 1>she is doing, and certainly Nate Personally has done this

0:04:54.480 --> 0:04:57.320
<v Speaker 1>before and is very good at it. That's much better

0:04:57.360 --> 0:05:00.800
<v Speaker 1>than having the politicians draw the lines. There's you know,

0:05:00.880 --> 0:05:04.640
<v Speaker 1>other paths, which include independent redistricting commissions, which some states

0:05:04.640 --> 0:05:07.640
<v Speaker 1>are using, and that's an also good way. Anything to

0:05:07.640 --> 0:05:11.040
<v Speaker 1>get the politicians out of the drawing process, in my view,

0:05:11.240 --> 0:05:14.400
<v Speaker 1>is a good thing because there have incentives to view

0:05:14.440 --> 0:05:16.560
<v Speaker 1>the mass in their favors, and we see that both

0:05:16.600 --> 0:05:20.520
<v Speaker 1>political parties do it. The Republicans have said the Court

0:05:20.880 --> 0:05:23.839
<v Speaker 1>set them up because it failed. It gave them less

0:05:23.839 --> 0:05:26.520
<v Speaker 1>than three weeks to redraw the congressional lines, and it

0:05:26.600 --> 0:05:30.280
<v Speaker 1>didn't issue a full opinion in the case. What do

0:05:30.320 --> 0:05:34.320
<v Speaker 1>you what's your take on those arguments. Well, you know,

0:05:34.360 --> 0:05:38.080
<v Speaker 1>I think the Court was acting quickly because we need

0:05:38.160 --> 0:05:41.800
<v Speaker 1>new match in place for people to know web districts

0:05:41.800 --> 0:05:46.479
<v Speaker 1>they're in and candidates to file their nomination papers. Um.

0:05:46.600 --> 0:05:48.320
<v Speaker 1>And so I do think you know there was a

0:05:48.360 --> 0:05:53.279
<v Speaker 1>reason for the Court to replier the legislature to act quickly, um,

0:05:53.360 --> 0:05:55.480
<v Speaker 1>in terms of not issuing an opinion. Yet I do

0:05:55.560 --> 0:05:57.640
<v Speaker 1>think it's a little strange, and it would be helpful

0:05:58.560 --> 0:06:01.360
<v Speaker 1>for the Pennsylvania Stream Court to issue it's full reasoning

0:06:01.400 --> 0:06:03.880
<v Speaker 1>as opposed to just an order. I don't think that

0:06:03.960 --> 0:06:07.880
<v Speaker 1>impacts what the legislature is tasked to do in terms

0:06:07.880 --> 0:06:10.000
<v Speaker 1>of drawing a new map. It knows that the map

0:06:10.040 --> 0:06:14.640
<v Speaker 1>it drew was way too skewed politically, and so it's

0:06:14.680 --> 0:06:17.320
<v Speaker 1>task is to not do so the next time around.

0:06:18.520 --> 0:06:21.840
<v Speaker 1>You mentioned the two Gerryman daring cases from Wisconsin and

0:06:21.920 --> 0:06:25.760
<v Speaker 1>Maryland before the Supreme Court explain the broad issues there.

0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:30.280
<v Speaker 1>So the wisconsinant case, it involves a statewide challenge for

0:06:30.360 --> 0:06:32.760
<v Speaker 1>the map as a whole, and it's using this new

0:06:32.880 --> 0:06:37.120
<v Speaker 1>standard called the efficiency gap, which essentially measures the partisans

0:06:37.240 --> 0:06:40.839
<v Speaker 1>view in the map as a whole. The problem is

0:06:40.880 --> 0:06:43.160
<v Speaker 1>that the Supreme Court hasn't been able to find a

0:06:43.200 --> 0:06:47.440
<v Speaker 1>good standard for testing when politics has infiltrated the mast

0:06:47.480 --> 0:06:50.279
<v Speaker 1>drawing process too much. The Maryland case is a little

0:06:50.320 --> 0:06:53.160
<v Speaker 1>bit different because it's challenged in just one district in

0:06:53.200 --> 0:06:55.159
<v Speaker 1>the state as opposed to the map as a whole,

0:06:55.600 --> 0:06:58.719
<v Speaker 1>and it's invoking the First Amendment, something that Justice Kennedy

0:06:59.040 --> 0:07:01.839
<v Speaker 1>has said he might be favorable in terms of looking

0:07:01.880 --> 0:07:04.560
<v Speaker 1>to the root out partisan jerry manders. So they have

0:07:04.600 --> 0:07:08.719
<v Speaker 1>different approaches. The Wisconsin cases broader and the Maryland cases

0:07:08.880 --> 0:07:12.240
<v Speaker 1>narrower and in different legal uh. Folk Guy as well.

0:07:12.840 --> 0:07:17.640
<v Speaker 1>Even if the Supreme Court says to the Wisconsin legislators,

0:07:17.720 --> 0:07:20.120
<v Speaker 1>you have to redraw this map and they do find

0:07:20.120 --> 0:07:24.240
<v Speaker 1>that it was partisan gerrymandering, would they say you have

0:07:24.320 --> 0:07:28.520
<v Speaker 1>to do it before the mid term elections. It's really

0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:31.520
<v Speaker 1>going to depend on when the decision comes out. You know,

0:07:31.760 --> 0:07:33.800
<v Speaker 1>if we don't have a decision until the end of

0:07:33.840 --> 0:07:36.559
<v Speaker 1>the tournam in June, then it might be very hard

0:07:36.680 --> 0:07:39.320
<v Speaker 1>to get a new map in place before the election.

0:07:39.480 --> 0:07:42.680
<v Speaker 1>So you might have one more election cycle under a

0:07:42.720 --> 0:07:45.960
<v Speaker 1>map that is unconstitutional. We've seen that happen before, so

0:07:46.000 --> 0:07:50.400
<v Speaker 1>it wouldn't be unprecedented. It certainly unfortunate, though, where just

0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:54.560
<v Speaker 1>because election cycles happen and the interests of time, a

0:07:54.640 --> 0:07:57.800
<v Speaker 1>map has to stay in place for one more cycle. Yeah,

0:07:57.880 --> 0:08:00.120
<v Speaker 1>it's not often that a court tells you you have

0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:02.160
<v Speaker 1>a just a few weeks to change the whole map.

0:08:02.640 --> 0:08:05.880
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for being here, Josh. That's Josh Douglass

0:08:05.880 --> 0:08:08.960
<v Speaker 1>of the University of Kentucky Law School. That current Pennsylvania

0:08:09.040 --> 0:08:12.360
<v Speaker 1>map includes the sprawling seventh District, which you might have

0:08:12.400 --> 0:08:17.600
<v Speaker 1>heard critics say resembles the cartoon character Goofy kicking Donald Duck.

0:08:21.320 --> 0:08:24.960
<v Speaker 1>The saga of the dueling memos continues. President Donald Trump

0:08:25.040 --> 0:08:28.800
<v Speaker 1>has received the Democratic memo countering the Republican memo, which

0:08:28.840 --> 0:08:33.079
<v Speaker 1>claims FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the surveillance of

0:08:33.120 --> 0:08:37.000
<v Speaker 1>a former Trump campaign advisor. Trump now has five days

0:08:37.080 --> 0:08:40.320
<v Speaker 1>to decide whether to release it, make redactions, or block it.

0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:44.040
<v Speaker 1>He backed disclosure of the GOP memo, and he classified it.

0:08:44.520 --> 0:08:46.800
<v Speaker 1>The man at the center of the controversy over the

0:08:46.800 --> 0:08:50.280
<v Speaker 1>surveillance warrant, Carter Page, said today in an interview with

0:08:50.320 --> 0:08:53.599
<v Speaker 1>ABC News is George Stephanopolis that the work he was

0:08:53.679 --> 0:08:56.160
<v Speaker 1>doing for the Kremlin was above board and part of

0:08:56.200 --> 0:08:59.400
<v Speaker 1>a G twenty conference. He also claimed that he's never

0:08:59.440 --> 0:09:03.400
<v Speaker 1>spoken to President Trump in his life. I never spoke

0:09:03.440 --> 0:09:05.480
<v Speaker 1>with him since I never spoke with him any time

0:09:05.520 --> 0:09:07.520
<v Speaker 1>in my life. You've never spoken to Donald Trump in

0:09:07.520 --> 0:09:10.680
<v Speaker 1>your life? No email, no text, nothing like that. Never.

0:09:11.679 --> 0:09:14.920
<v Speaker 1>My guest is Jimmy Grula, professor at the University of

0:09:14.920 --> 0:09:17.560
<v Speaker 1>Notre Dame Law School. Jimmy, let me ask you for

0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:22.559
<v Speaker 1>your you know, your reaction to hearing from Carter Page

0:09:22.640 --> 0:09:26.600
<v Speaker 1>and who says he never spoke to President Trump. He's

0:09:26.640 --> 0:09:33.040
<v Speaker 1>been distanced by the Trump administration. From the administration, is

0:09:33.080 --> 0:09:36.800
<v Speaker 1>it odd that they're using a surveillance memo about him

0:09:37.240 --> 0:09:39.959
<v Speaker 1>to fight this fight? Well, a couple of things that

0:09:40.200 --> 0:09:45.679
<v Speaker 1>it's certainly odd that Carter Page has never spoken with

0:09:45.679 --> 0:09:49.520
<v Speaker 1>with President Trump, despite the fact that President Trump, when

0:09:49.520 --> 0:09:54.480
<v Speaker 1>he was candidate Trump, UH selected Carter Page to be

0:09:54.720 --> 0:10:00.360
<v Speaker 1>a foreign affairs advisor to UH to then candidate candidate Trump.

0:10:00.840 --> 0:10:04.400
<v Speaker 1>And so it seems rather strange that he would that

0:10:04.720 --> 0:10:08.920
<v Speaker 1>Trump would appoint someone to such a prestigious position in

0:10:08.960 --> 0:10:15.120
<v Speaker 1>the campaign, you know, foreign advisor without ever having formally

0:10:15.240 --> 0:10:17.679
<v Speaker 1>met met the person. So so I find that that

0:10:17.720 --> 0:10:24.040
<v Speaker 1>claim curious at the least. The Intelligence Committee voted unanimously

0:10:24.160 --> 0:10:26.640
<v Speaker 1>to release the memo. What's your guests as to what

0:10:26.760 --> 0:10:31.600
<v Speaker 1>the president will do? Well, I'm hoping that that he

0:10:31.640 --> 0:10:34.880
<v Speaker 1>will treat the Democratic Memo the way that he treated

0:10:35.120 --> 0:10:39.600
<v Speaker 1>the Republican Memo, the Neonist Memo, and release it in

0:10:39.679 --> 0:10:44.440
<v Speaker 1>its entirety without any redactions. But that's the concern. I

0:10:44.480 --> 0:10:47.520
<v Speaker 1>think the concerned by the Democrats is whether or not

0:10:47.840 --> 0:10:50.240
<v Speaker 1>a the President is going to release the memo at all,

0:10:50.800 --> 0:10:53.000
<v Speaker 1>and be if he releases the memo is going to

0:10:53.080 --> 0:10:58.720
<v Speaker 1>be released with substantial redactions and sections completely blocked out.

0:10:59.200 --> 0:11:01.679
<v Speaker 1>And if that's the case, then then it really kind

0:11:01.720 --> 0:11:06.000
<v Speaker 1>of undercuts it will under cut his claim of transparency

0:11:06.000 --> 0:11:08.679
<v Speaker 1>and newness, his claim of transparency and wanting to get

0:11:08.679 --> 0:11:12.440
<v Speaker 1>to the bottom of the issues respect with respect to

0:11:12.600 --> 0:11:16.840
<v Speaker 1>the device and warrants with respect to Carter Page. The

0:11:16.920 --> 0:11:20.960
<v Speaker 1>House could Committee could then seek a very rare closed

0:11:20.960 --> 0:11:24.160
<v Speaker 1>door vote of all the House members to over ride

0:11:24.200 --> 0:11:28.040
<v Speaker 1>the president and still release it. What's the likelihood that

0:11:28.040 --> 0:11:32.880
<v Speaker 1>that might work. I think probably zero? Zero, Yeah, I

0:11:33.200 --> 0:11:35.800
<v Speaker 1>think zero. I mean, I don't have any confidence that

0:11:35.800 --> 0:11:39.280
<v Speaker 1>that there would be a majority of Republicans that that

0:11:39.320 --> 0:11:42.280
<v Speaker 1>would um seek to override the president. I mean, so

0:11:42.320 --> 0:11:45.160
<v Speaker 1>if the President decides not to release it for for

0:11:45.200 --> 0:11:48.959
<v Speaker 1>whatever reason, I have no confidence. So there would be

0:11:49.000 --> 0:11:52.920
<v Speaker 1>a majority of Republican members of Congress of the House

0:11:53.240 --> 0:11:56.960
<v Speaker 1>that would override or seek to override the president's will

0:11:57.000 --> 0:12:00.280
<v Speaker 1>on the on the issue. Now. Separately, former ye How

0:12:00.360 --> 0:12:04.280
<v Speaker 1>strategists Steve Bannon is planning to skip a closed door

0:12:04.400 --> 0:12:08.000
<v Speaker 1>interview with the committee today despite being subpoena to appear.

0:12:08.080 --> 0:12:10.439
<v Speaker 1>That's according to two people familiar with the matter in

0:12:10.480 --> 0:12:14.920
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg News, he has talked to mother. What does this show.

0:12:15.000 --> 0:12:17.440
<v Speaker 1>Is there a lack of fear that the committee will

0:12:17.520 --> 0:12:20.319
<v Speaker 1>do anything? Is it a disrespect for a committee that's

0:12:20.320 --> 0:12:24.280
<v Speaker 1>in disarray? Well, it could be. You know, it's certainly

0:12:24.440 --> 0:12:28.520
<v Speaker 1>very telling that the despite the fact that he has

0:12:29.120 --> 0:12:33.160
<v Speaker 1>been requested or that the committee has requested to have

0:12:33.320 --> 0:12:35.720
<v Speaker 1>him speaking for the committee, that now this is the

0:12:36.400 --> 0:12:38.480
<v Speaker 1>you know that that basically he's kind of thumbing their

0:12:38.520 --> 0:12:41.760
<v Speaker 1>nose at them, unless you know, there's some compelling reason

0:12:42.280 --> 0:12:45.079
<v Speaker 1>why he's unable to appear. But but if there is

0:12:45.120 --> 0:12:48.160
<v Speaker 1>such a compelling reason, it hasn't been articulated either by

0:12:48.360 --> 0:12:51.600
<v Speaker 1>by banning himself or by any members of the of

0:12:51.679 --> 0:12:55.480
<v Speaker 1>the committee. So perhaps it does suggest that, as he stated,

0:12:55.679 --> 0:12:59.080
<v Speaker 1>it's a committee in disarray, it's a committee that perhaps

0:12:59.160 --> 0:13:02.480
<v Speaker 1>has lost because it's become so partisan that has lost

0:13:02.520 --> 0:13:06.360
<v Speaker 1>all credibility, and maybe a Bannon doesn't think it's deserving

0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:11.160
<v Speaker 1>of his time. How often do these House committees actually

0:13:11.160 --> 0:13:14.520
<v Speaker 1>go forward and if someone refuses a subpoena try to

0:13:14.679 --> 0:13:17.600
<v Speaker 1>enforce it by seeking you know, going to a judge

0:13:17.640 --> 0:13:19.840
<v Speaker 1>and trying to get contempt orders. How often do they

0:13:19.840 --> 0:13:23.800
<v Speaker 1>actually push these issues? I think it's rare. I think typically,

0:13:24.040 --> 0:13:26.840
<v Speaker 1>of course, going to the court is going to be

0:13:27.400 --> 0:13:31.160
<v Speaker 1>an action of last resort, not first resort. And so

0:13:31.480 --> 0:13:34.000
<v Speaker 1>I think that there will be negotiations behind the scenes

0:13:34.040 --> 0:13:37.000
<v Speaker 1>to find out what's the objection to appearing me for

0:13:37.040 --> 0:13:40.480
<v Speaker 1>the committee, and can those objections or concerns be allayed

0:13:40.720 --> 0:13:44.000
<v Speaker 1>in some way short of going to the to a court.

0:13:44.480 --> 0:13:46.800
<v Speaker 1>And and further, I think on the other side, I

0:13:46.800 --> 0:13:50.360
<v Speaker 1>think courts are reluctant to intervene in these types of

0:13:50.679 --> 0:13:53.400
<v Speaker 1>and these types of matters and leave it to the

0:13:53.920 --> 0:13:57.360
<v Speaker 1>to to Congress to try to resolve resolve the matter

0:13:57.720 --> 0:14:02.200
<v Speaker 1>itself very quickly. President Trump's lawyers, several of them, have

0:14:02.240 --> 0:14:05.600
<v Speaker 1>advised him against a wide ranging interview with Special Counsel

0:14:05.679 --> 0:14:08.920
<v Speaker 1>Robert Mueller. According to The New York Times, aids and

0:14:09.000 --> 0:14:12.800
<v Speaker 1>lawyers believe Mueller might be unwilling to subpoena Trump and

0:14:13.920 --> 0:14:17.840
<v Speaker 1>spark a White House battle. Do you, in about forty

0:14:17.960 --> 0:14:20.680
<v Speaker 1>five seconds, do you have any doubt that the Special

0:14:20.680 --> 0:14:24.400
<v Speaker 1>Counsel will subpoena Trump? Well, I think that that of course,

0:14:24.440 --> 0:14:27.240
<v Speaker 1>first they're they're going to try to gain his co operations,

0:14:27.280 --> 0:14:30.400
<v Speaker 1>see if they if he will just respond positively to

0:14:30.520 --> 0:14:35.040
<v Speaker 1>a request to appear before before Bob Muller. And and

0:14:35.080 --> 0:14:37.320
<v Speaker 1>again the question is going to be if the answer

0:14:37.320 --> 0:14:39.320
<v Speaker 1>to that is no, then what are the concerns and

0:14:39.560 --> 0:14:42.960
<v Speaker 1>can those concerns be addressed in some way that's that's

0:14:42.960 --> 0:14:45.320
<v Speaker 1>acceptable to both parties. But I think at the end

0:14:45.320 --> 0:14:48.400
<v Speaker 1>of the day, if there's no agreement, I think that

0:14:48.480 --> 0:14:50.640
<v Speaker 1>the Muller will go the next step and and try

0:14:50.680 --> 0:14:53.960
<v Speaker 1>to force the president's hand through through the courts. Thanks

0:14:54.000 --> 0:14:57.920
<v Speaker 1>so much. That's Jimmy Rule, a professor at the University

0:14:57.960 --> 0:15:01.120
<v Speaker 1>of Notre Dame Law School. Thanks for listening to the

0:15:01.120 --> 0:15:04.520
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the

0:15:04.560 --> 0:15:08.440
<v Speaker 1>show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com

0:15:08.520 --> 0:15:12.720
<v Speaker 1>slash podcast. I am June Brosso. This is Bloomberg