Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossol from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: In a pair of speech is a day after he
Speaker 1: was acquitted on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress.
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump blasted his political foes, calling the impeachment
Speaker 1: drama evil and accusing his opponents of corruption and being
Speaker 1: dirty cops. Adam Schiff is a vicious, horrible person. Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi is a horrible person, and she wanted to impeach
Speaker 1: a long time ago when she said I pray for
Speaker 1: the president. I pray for the president. She may pray,
Speaker 1: but she prays for the opposite. But I doubt she
Speaker 1: prays it all. And these are vicious people. Joining me
Speaker 1: is National Security attorney Brad moss, a partner Mark Zaide.
Speaker 1: Susan Collins and other senators said that, you know, President
Speaker 1: Trump has learned his lesson after the impeachment, but what
Speaker 1: does his speech today tell you? Well, the view of
Speaker 1: Susan Collins and Marco Roumio and Lamar Alexander was all
Speaker 1: based more on aspiration than anything else. They're hoping that
Speaker 1: he said the president would take something that they would have,
Speaker 1: you know, learned a lesson like you would expect the
Speaker 1: child to learn a lesson after he get slapped on
Speaker 1: the wrist, and hoping that having gone through this, the
Speaker 1: president would you know, understand how he had crossed the line.
Speaker 1: The speech or whatever we're the celebration, whatever we're calling it,
Speaker 1: that transpired today um in the White House was clearly
Speaker 1: an indication that as far as the President is concerned,
Speaker 1: there was no lesson to be learned other than he
Speaker 1: can get away with it so long as his party
Speaker 1: will back him and cover things for him. He made
Speaker 1: no apologies for what he did. He still believes he
Speaker 1: did nothing wrong. He still believes it was a perfect call.
Speaker 1: He still believes he should be allowed to do this.
Speaker 1: And you know, as we're seeing already in reporting his
Speaker 1: indications that the efforts, both the private ones through rooted
Speaker 1: Giuliani and then the ones not going through the Senate,
Speaker 1: are going to ramp back up, and they're going to
Speaker 1: continue doing exactly what they're doing to dig up dirt
Speaker 1: on the bidens and try to press foreign parties to
Speaker 1: provide that information in exchange for official favors. In addition,
Speaker 1: he offered a new defense, saying that he had to
Speaker 1: do it basically because there was a treaty signed with
Speaker 1: Ukraine about corruption. So this was something that even his
Speaker 1: attorneys didn't bring up. Yes, so he's referencing a mutual
Speaker 1: legal assistance treaty that had been signed. And this was
Speaker 1: a lot of various Republican and conservative operatives had mentioned
Speaker 1: this in passing on Twitter over the last few months.
Speaker 1: Here was the problem that was designed for existing US
Speaker 1: government investigations if there was, you know, an ongoing investigation
Speaker 1: the FBI was looking into potential crimes committed by Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: that there was a treaty to elate to enable a
Speaker 1: mechanism to enable the two countries to exchange information. Obviously,
Speaker 1: there is no such investigation. The FBI has not investigated,
Speaker 1: is not investigating, or otherwise having indicted either Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: or Joe Biden for anything. This was a private scheme
Speaker 1: being run through Rudy Giuliani, using the connection to the
Speaker 1: President as the basis to state that absent these investigations
Speaker 1: being announced, the aid was going to be cut and
Speaker 1: they were using certain players like Ambassador Sonlin to do it.
Speaker 1: And of course it all goes without saying that if
Speaker 1: there was something here, there would be official investigations by
Speaker 1: the U. S. Government. There are no official investigations. And
Speaker 1: that's why the Trump lawyers and the you know in
Speaker 1: the Senatorial never bother bringing this up because they didn't
Speaker 1: go through any of the official channels that the assistance
Speaker 1: that the Mutual Systems Treaty considers and contemplates, and that
Speaker 1: wasn't anything that they ever invoked. This was a private scheme.
Speaker 1: I read today that the Treasury Department has handed over
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden's tax records to a command I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if it was the tax records or if it was
Speaker 1: travel records from the Secret Service. Wasn't quite sure. I
Speaker 1: wasn't quite clear what would turned over. But either way,
Speaker 1: whatever that is, it's amazing how suddenly the executive branch
Speaker 1: is able to turn over information to Congress, is willing
Speaker 1: to provide it in a timely fashion. In complete contrast
Speaker 1: with what we saw over the last few months as
Speaker 1: this impeach investigation ramped up and led up, led to
Speaker 1: the ultimate impeachment in the House and then the acquittal
Speaker 1: in the Senate. All of those categorical refuses to cooperate,
Speaker 1: all the insistence that no one should be allowed to
Speaker 1: talk to Congress. Something went out the window now that
Speaker 1: it is something that helps the president in supports the
Speaker 1: president's political agenda. So yeah, it's rank hypocrisy. Mitt Romney
Speaker 1: made history by being the only Senator to vote to
Speaker 1: impeach a president of his own party, and today President
Speaker 1: Trump has set his sights, it seems for Mitt Romney,
Speaker 1: and I wonder if he'll be ostracized in Washington by
Speaker 1: the Republicans, even though John McCain when he gave that
Speaker 1: thumbs down vote on Obamacare, was not ostracized. I don't
Speaker 1: think that Mitt Romney will be completely ostracized by the
Speaker 1: party for the most part, in the sense that he's
Speaker 1: not gonna be expelled from the you know, Republican caucus
Speaker 1: and the setting. He's not going to be pushed out
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party in general. He's going to be
Speaker 1: isolated a little bit in terms of some things. There's
Speaker 1: going to be unending vitriol from the White House against him.
Speaker 1: He's not gonna get any assistance from them on any
Speaker 1: of his projects. The Trump family will almost certainly try
Speaker 1: to help any primary challenge that might be launched against
Speaker 1: Romney in the future if he runs for re election
Speaker 1: in a few years. But Mitch McConnell's not going to
Speaker 1: do anything that jeopardized that seat in Utah. He needs
Speaker 1: his majority and that was that's one of the critical seats,
Speaker 1: and he's not going to run any risk. But this
Speaker 1: is again, this is what we live with in the
Speaker 1: era of Trump. In this cult of personality, you do
Speaker 1: not dissent, you do not question dear leader. You must
Speaker 1: at all times be loyal, even if he's not loyal
Speaker 1: to you. And it's a rather distressing way to see
Speaker 1: the Party of Lincoln go in the sense that they
Speaker 1: are now just unwilling to ever question this cult of
Speaker 1: personality that has taken over them. How Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: who was one of the subjects of President Trump's ire today,
Speaker 1: says that she'd done her part to be respectful to him.
Speaker 1: But now I feel very liberated. I feel that I've
Speaker 1: extended every possible courtesy. I've shown every level of respect.
Speaker 1: I say to my members all the time, there's no
Speaker 1: such thing as an eternal animosity. I've been talking to
Speaker 1: Brad Moss about the President's reaction to his acquittal. So, Brad,
Speaker 1: the question is whether some of the senators in those
Speaker 1: swing states will be punished at the ballot box for
Speaker 1: voting to acquit Trump or whether by the time November
Speaker 1: comes it will all be forgotten. So, assuming there's nothing
Speaker 1: more to come in this particular contact between now and November,
Speaker 1: I think Susan Collins is in serious trouble. I think
Speaker 1: Corey Gardner is in serious trouble, and I think Tom
Speaker 1: Tillis in North Carolina isn't serious trouble now. To be sure,
Speaker 1: all three were facing very serious challenges regardless, and I
Speaker 1: think for part of for part of the reason they
Speaker 1: chose to vote the way they did was a political
Speaker 1: calculation that they would rather risk angering you know, independence
Speaker 1: and Democrats who likely we're never going to vote for
Speaker 1: them anyways, and keep the loyalty of the president, keep
Speaker 1: the President's support, which they'll need to secure reelection. Uh,
Speaker 1: then going out on a lamb, voting to convict failing,
Speaker 1: and then having to deal with an angry you know,
Speaker 1: Republican base and an angry White House. So for them,
Speaker 1: their only hope was to basically be political opportunists, you know,
Speaker 1: trying to claim that, oh, we hope he'll learn from this,
Speaker 1: but very much be political opportunists and hold onto power.
Speaker 1: Simply by you know, covering their eyes and covering their
Speaker 1: ears and hoping they don't hear anything or see anything.
Speaker 1: What was surprising to me, in addition to Mitt Romney's vote,
Speaker 1: what was surprising to me was that the Democratic senators
Speaker 1: all voted in favor of convicting Trump. And I mean
Speaker 1: there seemed to be some that are taking a risk
Speaker 1: by doing that. Yeah, And so the ones who are
Speaker 1: here probably thinking of so. One would obviously be um
Speaker 1: Mansion out in West Virginia, which is obviously now become
Speaker 1: a very deeply read state. Um at least, you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of how they vote for president that ironically
Speaker 1: has a significant base of registered Democrats, but Democrats who
Speaker 1: usually tend to actually vote for Republican presidential candidates. Um
Speaker 1: Mansion is rather popular out there. Presumably if he chooses
Speaker 1: to run again, this will be a problem for him,
Speaker 1: but it's unclear that it would be one that would
Speaker 1: truly stop him from winning. He has his own base
Speaker 1: of popularity out there long before Donald Trump had presumably
Speaker 1: will still have it now in the aftermatho Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: The other one, the other senator who might be in trouble,
Speaker 1: is going to be Um Senator Cinema out in Arizona.
Speaker 1: But with one thing she has going for her is
Speaker 1: that the demographics of Arizona have been changing. We saw
Speaker 1: that with how the you know, her recent election, you know,
Speaker 1: a Democrat winning in Arizona and not been something that
Speaker 1: had happened a long time. You've been seeing those demographics change.
Speaker 1: And so part of her calculation, no doubt, from a
Speaker 1: political context, was if I don't vote to convict, do
Speaker 1: I depress my own base and cause problems for myself
Speaker 1: including a possible primary challenge when I'm up for re elections.
Speaker 1: So I'm sure that was part of it. But in
Speaker 1: the end, you would hope for most of these senators
Speaker 1: on both sides of the you would hope that they
Speaker 1: took their oaths seriously and that they were trying to
Speaker 1: render impartial justice. And unfortunately, in the context of some
Speaker 1: of these senators, they chose to take what I would
Speaker 1: view as the political route to save themselves in November
Speaker 1: rather than actually render an impartial verdict. And now attention
Speaker 1: turns back to the House to see whether or not
Speaker 1: some of the chairs of House committees are going to
Speaker 1: restart their investigations into President Trump and one of the
Speaker 1: big things on the line is of course, whether or
Speaker 1: not the House Judiciary Chair will subpoena John Bolton to testify,
Speaker 1: and then whether or not Bolton will comply if subpoenaed.
Speaker 1: So Bolton is obviously, you know, the big shiny object.
Speaker 1: His book is supposed to come out in March. We're
Speaker 1: still waiting to see if that's actually going to happen.
Speaker 1: There's been no word yet on the final review Review
Speaker 1: approval um through the National Security Council that has to
Speaker 1: sign off on whether or not this classfied information in
Speaker 1: his book. Um, but yeah, I think you you can
Speaker 1: expect to some extent there's going to be a slew
Speaker 1: of remaining on investigations that will continue on to sort
Speaker 1: of flesh out the record, not the purpose of an
Speaker 1: additional impeachment, but soon Sure the public has everything it
Speaker 1: needs in the run up to November, and I expect
Speaker 1: that there'll be a supplemental report coming out of various
Speaker 1: House chairs um in the run up to November of
Speaker 1: here's the additional information that we were not able to
Speaker 1: get in time for the impeachment investigation and for the
Speaker 1: Senate trial. That the White House did everything it could
Speaker 1: to keep from you. Here's what we've been able to
Speaker 1: collect there. If your ongoing investigations, you the American voter,
Speaker 1: you render your own decision whether or not this matters
Speaker 1: to you. You get to make that ultimate call. And
Speaker 1: what's your take on whether or not Bolton will testify?
Speaker 1: If so, that as six to four thousand questions, So
Speaker 1: you would assume that he will because he said publicly
Speaker 1: he would. But that was the context of a Senate trial. Well,
Speaker 1: that's no longer an issue. The Senate trial is over.
Speaker 1: The president was acquitted. So does does John bolt do
Speaker 1: John Gon Bolton back down now as he say, well,
Speaker 1: there's no reason, no longer reason for me to come testify.
Speaker 1: You can buy my book and read it there. I'm
Speaker 1: sure he might make that argument. He might rely on
Speaker 1: some of the defenses he otherwise was going to swear
Speaker 1: off in the Senate trial. Will have to wait and see,
Speaker 1: as Donald Trump would say, to find out what John
Speaker 1: Bolton actually does. If a subpoena is issue, You've a
Speaker 1: litigated cases I believe where there were questions from the
Speaker 1: National Security Agency about a book being published. So in
Speaker 1: this case, is there anything Bolton can do to speed
Speaker 1: up the process. If he's not getting back from the
Speaker 1: n s A. What he needs to in order to
Speaker 1: make changes to the book and to get it moving.
Speaker 1: Is there anything he can do, So what he's able
Speaker 1: to do right now, he's able to file lawsuit if
Speaker 1: you wanted to um under the First Amendment, claiming undue delay,
Speaker 1: claiming that the review process has been unduly delayed and
Speaker 1: it's depriving him of the ability to publish unclassified information
Speaker 1: that is protected by the First Amendment. And to be clear,
Speaker 1: the case law driving from a Supreme Court case in
Speaker 1: the eighties make very clear the government may not censor
Speaker 1: the speech of former government employees in terms of unclassified information.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if it was executive privilege issues any
Speaker 1: of that. The only thing the government can censor in
Speaker 1: these books of former employees is properly classified information, and
Speaker 1: the employees have the ability to sue to challenge that,
Speaker 1: but they have to go through this process and if
Speaker 1: the government is, you know, drawing it out, there is
Speaker 1: a means to simply bring the suit early claim undue delayed,
Speaker 1: which usually just gets the government to finally finish up
Speaker 1: their decision process, at which point the person can choose
Speaker 1: whether or not they want to continue with the challenge
Speaker 1: or if they're satisfied with what they got out of
Speaker 1: the review. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law Brad, that's
Speaker 1: Brad Mall's apartment marks A. I'm June Grosso and this
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg