1 00:00:00,360 --> 00:00:05,200 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law. Some complicated international law issues here, 2 00:00:05,240 --> 00:00:08,360 Speaker 1: and what kind of docket is Chief Justice Roberts facing 3 00:00:08,400 --> 00:00:11,959 Speaker 1: interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg Legal Experts. Joining me 4 00:00:12,000 --> 00:00:15,200 Speaker 1: is Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store, Neil Devans, 5 00:00:15,280 --> 00:00:18,040 Speaker 1: Professor at William and Mary Law School, and analysis of 6 00:00:18,120 --> 00:00:22,600 Speaker 1: important legal issues, cases and headlines. President Trump lost resoundingly 7 00:00:22,680 --> 00:00:25,959 Speaker 1: in the circuit courts and unusually large number of immigration 8 00:00:26,040 --> 00:00:30,479 Speaker 1: cases Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. President 9 00:00:30,480 --> 00:00:33,640 Speaker 1: Trump's legal team continued their argument in the Senate impeachment 10 00:00:33,680 --> 00:00:38,000 Speaker 1: trial against him. Lawyer Ken Starr, whose Independent Council investigation 11 00:00:38,080 --> 00:00:41,920 Speaker 1: into President Bill Clinton resulted in his impeachment, argued that 12 00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:45,839 Speaker 1: impeachment is being used as a political weapon. The Senate, 13 00:00:45,880 --> 00:00:52,199 Speaker 1: in its wisdom, do well, and its deliberations to guide 14 00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:58,200 Speaker 1: the nation, in this world's greatest deliberative body, to return 15 00:00:59,200 --> 00:01:06,320 Speaker 1: to our country's traditions when presidential impeachment was truly a 16 00:01:06,360 --> 00:01:10,759 Speaker 1: measure of last resort. Joining me is Neil kin Caper, 17 00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:14,400 Speaker 1: Professor at Georgia State University College of Law. Give me 18 00:01:14,480 --> 00:01:18,200 Speaker 1: your your general take on the defense. Well, I think 19 00:01:18,200 --> 00:01:20,880 Speaker 1: they don't have much of a defense to present, and 20 00:01:21,040 --> 00:01:26,280 Speaker 1: today's presentations I think really illuminated that. First, just the 21 00:01:26,360 --> 00:01:31,880 Speaker 1: decision to ignore John Bolton's statements in his book is 22 00:01:31,959 --> 00:01:35,479 Speaker 1: just completely irresponsible. Those statements are out there and they 23 00:01:35,480 --> 00:01:39,040 Speaker 1: are direct evidence that the President regarded this whole matter 24 00:01:39,080 --> 00:01:42,600 Speaker 1: as a quid pro quo. Then they stand up and 25 00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:45,160 Speaker 1: say there is no evidence of a quid pro quo. 26 00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:47,640 Speaker 1: That's true. If you ignore all of the evidence that 27 00:01:47,720 --> 00:01:51,680 Speaker 1: exists of a quid pro quo, it's just bizarre, and 28 00:01:51,800 --> 00:01:58,440 Speaker 1: ken stars presentation was galling, requires us to ignore the 29 00:01:58,560 --> 00:02:03,760 Speaker 1: role he played in impeachment and in politicizing our politics. 30 00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:09,160 Speaker 1: How important is what people are calling the bombshell information 31 00:02:09,200 --> 00:02:14,280 Speaker 1: about John Bolton's book. It's crucially important because there is 32 00:02:14,320 --> 00:02:18,360 Speaker 1: a mountain of evidence that would lead any fair minded 33 00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:23,040 Speaker 1: person to believe that President Trump created a quid pro quote, 34 00:02:23,080 --> 00:02:26,640 Speaker 1: that he was withholding the aid in order to get investigations. 35 00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:29,880 Speaker 1: But his defenders have said over and over again, there 36 00:02:30,000 --> 00:02:33,679 Speaker 1: is no direct evidence. No one testified that they directly 37 00:02:33,760 --> 00:02:36,960 Speaker 1: were told that it was either their presumption, it was 38 00:02:37,000 --> 00:02:41,480 Speaker 1: their understanding, but it was never expressly stated. Well, for 39 00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:45,079 Speaker 1: people who want to hang on to that thin read. 40 00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:51,079 Speaker 1: Bolton's evidence completely destroys it because the reporting is that 41 00:02:51,560 --> 00:02:55,200 Speaker 1: he is saying that Trump told him directly that there 42 00:02:55,280 --> 00:02:59,280 Speaker 1: was a link between releasing the AID and the beginning 43 00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:04,160 Speaker 1: of those in investigations. Now suppose they called John Bolton 44 00:03:04,240 --> 00:03:08,600 Speaker 1: to testify, then what it opened the door to more witnesses, 45 00:03:08,720 --> 00:03:13,000 Speaker 1: because now you have Mick Mulvaney saying that what Bolton 46 00:03:13,080 --> 00:03:17,600 Speaker 1: said is not true, and the same Mike Pompeo. So 47 00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:19,800 Speaker 1: then would you need to call them as well? I 48 00:03:19,800 --> 00:03:23,360 Speaker 1: don't know about need to. Certainly Mick mulvaney should be 49 00:03:23,440 --> 00:03:28,000 Speaker 1: called to answer if that's not true. Why first of all, 50 00:03:28,000 --> 00:03:30,880 Speaker 1: why he said it was true when when he spoke 51 00:03:30,880 --> 00:03:35,000 Speaker 1: at his press conference um and also to talk about 52 00:03:35,200 --> 00:03:37,360 Speaker 1: the whole process of how the money came to be 53 00:03:37,480 --> 00:03:40,800 Speaker 1: held and the way in which and this is something 54 00:03:40,840 --> 00:03:44,040 Speaker 1: that the office he headed, the Office of Management and Budget, 55 00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:47,880 Speaker 1: is deeply involved with. It violated the federal law, the 56 00:03:47,920 --> 00:03:54,680 Speaker 1: Impoundment Control Act. Reportedly, John Bolton is a copious note taker. Well, 57 00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:58,640 Speaker 1: I think it bolsters his credibility. And you know, so 58 00:03:58,760 --> 00:04:02,040 Speaker 1: he has notes and there's nothing that would prevent him 59 00:04:02,080 --> 00:04:05,440 Speaker 1: bringing those along with him to the Senate they don't 60 00:04:05,440 --> 00:04:08,240 Speaker 1: appear to be property of the federal government that can 61 00:04:08,280 --> 00:04:12,240 Speaker 1: be forbidden to him. Um, and those can corroborate the 62 00:04:12,320 --> 00:04:16,080 Speaker 1: statements he's making about what the President told him. Let's 63 00:04:16,080 --> 00:04:18,919 Speaker 1: talk a little bit about some of the points made 64 00:04:19,360 --> 00:04:25,160 Speaker 1: by the defense, including on Saturday where White House Council 65 00:04:25,200 --> 00:04:28,679 Speaker 1: Pat Cipolone said, we're here to perpetrate the most massive 66 00:04:28,800 --> 00:04:33,960 Speaker 1: interference in an election in American history. According to what 67 00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:39,479 Speaker 1: he said, wouldn't any impeachment proceeding be an interference in 68 00:04:39,520 --> 00:04:45,640 Speaker 1: an election? Any impeachment proceeding against the president? Yes? Um, right, 69 00:04:45,800 --> 00:04:49,080 Speaker 1: The President Nixon could have made the same argument. President 70 00:04:49,120 --> 00:04:51,960 Speaker 1: Clinton could have made the same argument President Johnson. Any 71 00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:56,560 Speaker 1: president who's being impeached can say it's subverting an election, 72 00:04:56,680 --> 00:04:59,839 Speaker 1: which is how I got into office. Um. And And 73 00:05:00,279 --> 00:05:03,279 Speaker 1: the further point that Sippoloni was making is that it 74 00:05:03,320 --> 00:05:07,880 Speaker 1: would take Donald Trump's name off the ballot this November. Um, 75 00:05:07,960 --> 00:05:11,440 Speaker 1: that's not necessarily the case. And I'm sure if somehow 76 00:05:11,520 --> 00:05:14,760 Speaker 1: Donald Trump were convicted, Sipoloni would make the argument that 77 00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:18,520 Speaker 1: he should not be UM barred from running. The Senate 78 00:05:18,560 --> 00:05:21,960 Speaker 1: can impose that punishment, but doesn't have to. Um And 79 00:05:22,000 --> 00:05:25,320 Speaker 1: has only imposed it twice in history. It is part 80 00:05:25,360 --> 00:05:29,760 Speaker 1: of the articles seeking to have Donald Trump prohibited from 81 00:05:29,760 --> 00:05:33,080 Speaker 1: ever holding office again. But I could imagine Republicans in 82 00:05:33,120 --> 00:05:35,920 Speaker 1: the Senate saying, well, the American people should get their 83 00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:38,640 Speaker 1: decision um, and we want to do something that's consistent 84 00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:41,960 Speaker 1: with democracy, so we won't borrow from the ballot. I've 85 00:05:42,040 --> 00:05:47,200 Speaker 1: covered many trials and you rarely, if ever see personal 86 00:05:47,240 --> 00:05:50,320 Speaker 1: attacks on the lawyers who are doing me arguing, whether 87 00:05:50,320 --> 00:05:53,960 Speaker 1: it's defense attorney or the prosecutor. But in this case, 88 00:05:54,480 --> 00:05:59,520 Speaker 1: the defense decided to attack Congressman Adam Schiff. How unusual 89 00:05:59,640 --> 00:06:03,200 Speaker 1: is that and is it appropriate? It would be perfectly 90 00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:05,680 Speaker 1: appropriate if there were any merit to it. I think 91 00:06:05,720 --> 00:06:09,960 Speaker 1: Adam Schiff ran a perfectly fine process. The problem is 92 00:06:10,160 --> 00:06:13,000 Speaker 1: the President is running out of arguments, and now that 93 00:06:13,040 --> 00:06:16,640 Speaker 1: he can no longer with a straight face claim that 94 00:06:17,120 --> 00:06:20,800 Speaker 1: the AID was not linked to investigations, the only thing 95 00:06:20,880 --> 00:06:24,719 Speaker 1: he has left is to say the process has been unfair, 96 00:06:25,040 --> 00:06:29,640 Speaker 1: and that requires you to attack Adam Schiff and the 97 00:06:29,680 --> 00:06:32,960 Speaker 1: process that he ran back in the House of Representatives. 98 00:06:33,040 --> 00:06:36,240 Speaker 1: Let's turn to Kenneth Star for a moment. He said, 99 00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:38,279 Speaker 1: we are living in what I think can aptly be 100 00:06:38,360 --> 00:06:42,120 Speaker 1: described as the age of impeachment. So we talked about 101 00:06:42,160 --> 00:06:47,520 Speaker 1: impeachments becoming too common and that impeachments should be bipartisan. 102 00:06:47,960 --> 00:06:52,080 Speaker 1: What's your take on his approach to this. Well, for 103 00:06:52,160 --> 00:06:56,279 Speaker 1: him to make that claim is just outlandish. And he 104 00:06:56,480 --> 00:06:59,960 Speaker 1: is the one who made impeachment weaponized. UM. It would 105 00:07:00,200 --> 00:07:05,880 Speaker 1: his report, which was designed at every turn of the page, 106 00:07:06,160 --> 00:07:10,680 Speaker 1: was designed to compel the House of Representatives to impeach 107 00:07:11,080 --> 00:07:15,560 Speaker 1: President Clinton. Um. And that after an investigation that was 108 00:07:15,640 --> 00:07:19,400 Speaker 1: designed to find anything it could. Remember he was appointed 109 00:07:19,440 --> 00:07:23,600 Speaker 1: to investigate the failed land deal Whitewater. He found nothing. 110 00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:27,400 Speaker 1: He found nothing. Um. It was only when he could 111 00:07:27,440 --> 00:07:31,600 Speaker 1: then turn it into President Clinton's personal scandal that he 112 00:07:31,680 --> 00:07:35,840 Speaker 1: was able to concoct the grounds for impeachment. That's his record, 113 00:07:36,240 --> 00:07:39,520 Speaker 1: That's what he did. He acknowledged none of that. He 114 00:07:39,640 --> 00:07:43,080 Speaker 1: also made the demonstrably false claim that the articles of 115 00:07:43,120 --> 00:07:47,520 Speaker 1: impeachment brought to the Senate showed criminal misconduct beyond a 116 00:07:47,560 --> 00:07:51,360 Speaker 1: reasonable doubt. In fact, the articles brought to the Senate 117 00:07:51,400 --> 00:07:54,840 Speaker 1: did not prove UM. The case against Bill Clinton. If 118 00:07:54,880 --> 00:07:58,160 Speaker 1: you recall Arlen Spector attempted to vote not proven when 119 00:07:58,200 --> 00:08:01,920 Speaker 1: when the question was called um, Bill Clinton was not 120 00:08:02,040 --> 00:08:08,720 Speaker 1: impeached because, in fact, Republicans voted to acquit, specifically because 121 00:08:09,040 --> 00:08:12,680 Speaker 1: the evidence was lacking. Looking at this in the light 122 00:08:12,760 --> 00:08:15,920 Speaker 1: of the defense can be seen best. What are they 123 00:08:16,280 --> 00:08:19,600 Speaker 1: trying to do here? I think they're trying to emphasize, 124 00:08:19,640 --> 00:08:22,720 Speaker 1: first of all, that the bar to impeach a sitting 125 00:08:22,760 --> 00:08:26,640 Speaker 1: president should be very high, and I think everyone should 126 00:08:26,680 --> 00:08:29,720 Speaker 1: agree with that. And if we were to look at 127 00:08:29,800 --> 00:08:35,120 Speaker 1: Keen stars oration charitably that that was his claim, um, 128 00:08:35,240 --> 00:08:38,360 Speaker 1: that bar I think has clearly been met, but that 129 00:08:38,559 --> 00:08:42,040 Speaker 1: that was his claim. The other claim is that, well, 130 00:08:42,400 --> 00:08:45,959 Speaker 1: the House managers decided to proceed with the evidence they 131 00:08:46,000 --> 00:08:50,120 Speaker 1: had before them, and that didn't include John Bolton's book, 132 00:08:50,679 --> 00:08:54,480 Speaker 1: and so we shouldn't include it now. Um. That seems 133 00:08:54,520 --> 00:08:57,240 Speaker 1: to me just wrong. And if if it were to 134 00:08:57,520 --> 00:09:02,760 Speaker 1: come out this morning that UM, President Trump had actually 135 00:09:02,800 --> 00:09:08,800 Speaker 1: conspired with Vladimir Putin to rig the election in U 136 00:09:09,240 --> 00:09:12,040 Speaker 1: it would be preposterous to claim that the Senate could 137 00:09:12,080 --> 00:09:17,400 Speaker 1: not take that into consideration. The Defense and Republicans keep 138 00:09:17,559 --> 00:09:20,640 Speaker 1: bringing up, well, if you wanted to call witnesses, if 139 00:09:20,679 --> 00:09:24,400 Speaker 1: you wanted to call Bolton, why didn't use subpoena him? 140 00:09:24,440 --> 00:09:28,520 Speaker 1: What the Democrats response is, well, it would have taken forever. 141 00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:32,319 Speaker 1: Look at where are subpoena against Don McGann for for 142 00:09:32,440 --> 00:09:35,720 Speaker 1: White House Council is We're still not even close. But 143 00:09:35,920 --> 00:09:41,200 Speaker 1: should the Democrats have kept those subpoenas in play while 144 00:09:41,320 --> 00:09:44,840 Speaker 1: this process was ongoing. I don't think it would have 145 00:09:44,880 --> 00:09:47,760 Speaker 1: done any good. The problem is precisely the one that 146 00:09:47,840 --> 00:09:50,880 Speaker 1: you point to um. It takes a very long time 147 00:09:51,000 --> 00:09:54,000 Speaker 1: to litigate those disputes. It takes years and years to 148 00:09:54,080 --> 00:09:57,160 Speaker 1: litigate those disputes. Ken Starr made the point today that 149 00:09:57,320 --> 00:10:01,000 Speaker 1: sometimes litigation happens very quickly. He going into the famous 150 00:10:01,000 --> 00:10:05,800 Speaker 1: Pentagon Papers case. That's one case in the more than 151 00:10:05,840 --> 00:10:09,600 Speaker 1: two hundred year history of the Supreme Court. This litigation 152 00:10:09,720 --> 00:10:12,560 Speaker 1: was not going to move quickly, and the Don McGann 153 00:10:12,679 --> 00:10:16,520 Speaker 1: subpoena is a perfect example of how these matters were 154 00:10:16,600 --> 00:10:19,360 Speaker 1: not being treated with the speed that was given to 155 00:10:19,400 --> 00:10:22,480 Speaker 1: the Pentagon Papers case. But the other point is the 156 00:10:22,520 --> 00:10:25,280 Speaker 1: one that ken Starr also made. He was making the 157 00:10:25,360 --> 00:10:28,360 Speaker 1: argument that we're already too close to the election for 158 00:10:28,440 --> 00:10:33,880 Speaker 1: the Senate to subvert the upcoming election in his terms. 159 00:10:34,679 --> 00:10:39,080 Speaker 1: If the House of Representatives had pursued those subpoenas and 160 00:10:39,240 --> 00:10:44,079 Speaker 1: litigated them even with incredible dispatch. The earliest they could 161 00:10:44,120 --> 00:10:47,240 Speaker 1: possibly have been decided would have been this coming summer, 162 00:10:47,480 --> 00:10:50,240 Speaker 1: and then those arguments would have been made and made 163 00:10:50,240 --> 00:10:53,360 Speaker 1: with real force, that the election is right around the corner. 164 00:10:53,480 --> 00:10:56,080 Speaker 1: Why don't we just leave this to the election into 165 00:10:56,160 --> 00:10:58,880 Speaker 1: the judgment of the American people. The point in going 166 00:10:58,960 --> 00:11:03,440 Speaker 1: forward now was twofold, first of all, to maintain a 167 00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:08,360 Speaker 1: respectable amount of time between the impeachment and the next election. 168 00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:11,719 Speaker 1: And second of all, it embodies the judgment that it 169 00:11:11,840 --> 00:11:15,240 Speaker 1: is too dangerous to leave Donald Trump in office because 170 00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:20,400 Speaker 1: the wrongdoing he's accused of specifically relates to subverting the 171 00:11:20,440 --> 00:11:24,400 Speaker 1: integrity of the upcoming election. And so it's too important 172 00:11:24,440 --> 00:11:27,880 Speaker 1: to move forward and remove from office someone who would 173 00:11:27,960 --> 00:11:30,800 Speaker 1: use all the powers and trappings of the office for 174 00:11:30,880 --> 00:11:35,000 Speaker 1: his personal benefit rather than for the public benefit. And 175 00:11:35,080 --> 00:11:38,560 Speaker 1: so it's we shouldn't have to wait for the d 176 00:11:38,640 --> 00:11:41,320 Speaker 1: C District Court and the d C Circuit Court and 177 00:11:41,360 --> 00:11:44,320 Speaker 1: the d C Circuit Court on bonk before the Supreme 178 00:11:44,360 --> 00:11:49,280 Speaker 1: Court before finally removing someone from office when the case 179 00:11:49,440 --> 00:11:53,559 Speaker 1: is already so strong. Neil ken Starr mentioned it today, 180 00:11:53,640 --> 00:11:57,640 Speaker 1: and we expect to hear more from Alan Dershowitz about 181 00:11:57,920 --> 00:12:01,840 Speaker 1: crimes being necessary. There has to be a real, stated 182 00:12:01,960 --> 00:12:05,920 Speaker 1: crime in order to go forward with impeachment. Would the 183 00:12:05,960 --> 00:12:10,520 Speaker 1: Democrats have been smarter to charge a real crime, so 184 00:12:10,640 --> 00:12:14,319 Speaker 1: called real crime, let's say extortion. Would they have been 185 00:12:14,360 --> 00:12:18,760 Speaker 1: smart to do that just to get rid of this argument? Well, 186 00:12:18,800 --> 00:12:21,880 Speaker 1: I think the problem of that argument is that then 187 00:12:21,920 --> 00:12:25,400 Speaker 1: it changes the nature of the preceding. Instead of being 188 00:12:25,440 --> 00:12:29,160 Speaker 1: a proceeding that focuses on Donald Trump having abused the 189 00:12:29,240 --> 00:12:34,800 Speaker 1: office in this extortionary way, all of the discussion would 190 00:12:34,800 --> 00:12:38,960 Speaker 1: be around the legal technicalities of extortion, which may or 191 00:12:39,040 --> 00:12:41,600 Speaker 1: may not be met, and whether they are or aren't 192 00:12:41,679 --> 00:12:45,280 Speaker 1: is entirely beside the point. The point is Donald Trump 193 00:12:45,320 --> 00:12:48,880 Speaker 1: abused his power and abused his office for personal gain 194 00:12:49,360 --> 00:12:52,000 Speaker 1: and for personal gain in a way that subverts the 195 00:12:52,120 --> 00:12:56,840 Speaker 1: upcoming election. That is simply intolerable, whether it fits in 196 00:12:57,040 --> 00:13:01,320 Speaker 1: the technical boxes of the federal Dorsian Statute or not. 197 00:13:02,120 --> 00:13:05,640 Speaker 1: And that's the reason that in fact, the impeachment um 198 00:13:06,080 --> 00:13:09,360 Speaker 1: clauses in the in the Constitution are not drafted to 199 00:13:09,480 --> 00:13:13,880 Speaker 1: require an actual crime. Let's just say that they decide 200 00:13:13,920 --> 00:13:17,079 Speaker 1: to allow some witnesses at least to call John Bolton. 201 00:13:17,520 --> 00:13:20,600 Speaker 1: In the end, there are going to be enough Republicans 202 00:13:20,760 --> 00:13:24,720 Speaker 1: to call for Trump's moving from office. So then is 203 00:13:24,760 --> 00:13:29,319 Speaker 1: it just an exercise and futility to have Bolton testify? Goodness, no, 204 00:13:30,000 --> 00:13:33,360 Speaker 1: it is crucial to have Bolton testify. And first of all, 205 00:13:33,400 --> 00:13:38,080 Speaker 1: remember who John Bolton is. He is a conservative and 206 00:13:38,160 --> 00:13:42,360 Speaker 1: a Republican to his core. He is not a liberal. 207 00:13:42,480 --> 00:13:45,280 Speaker 1: He is not part of any deep state. For him 208 00:13:45,320 --> 00:13:48,760 Speaker 1: to come forward with this testimony is going very much 209 00:13:48,880 --> 00:13:53,760 Speaker 1: against his interest, against his orientation, against his loyalties, and 210 00:13:53,880 --> 00:13:57,760 Speaker 1: so the credibility of that evidence is very, very high, 211 00:13:58,120 --> 00:14:01,640 Speaker 1: and it's important for the public to That's Neil Kincoff, 212 00:14:01,679 --> 00:14:04,520 Speaker 1: a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law.