1
00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:03,360
Speaker 1: The leading case over President Trump's financial interests went before

2
00:00:03,360 --> 00:00:05,720
Speaker 1: a federal judge in New York on Wednesday. The suit

3
00:00:05,720 --> 00:00:09,520
Speaker 1: accuses the president of violating the Constitution's emoluments clause, which

4
00:00:09,520 --> 00:00:13,400
Speaker 1: bars federal officials from accepting things of value from foreign governments.

5
00:00:13,920 --> 00:00:17,000
Speaker 1: Among the allegations, the suit claims foreign officials are occurring

6
00:00:17,079 --> 00:00:19,680
Speaker 1: favor with the president by staying at the Trump International

7
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:22,960
Speaker 1: Hotel in Washington and by providing his business with valuable

8
00:00:23,000 --> 00:00:26,920
Speaker 1: trademark protection in China. Judge George Daniels said, hill the

9
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:29,080
Speaker 1: side in the next thirty to sixty days whether the

10
00:00:29,120 --> 00:00:31,880
Speaker 1: suit can go forward. Our guest today is one of

11
00:00:31,880 --> 00:00:35,080
Speaker 1: the people behind the suit. He is Richard Painter, professor

12
00:00:35,120 --> 00:00:37,320
Speaker 1: at the University of Minnesota Law School and vice chairman

13
00:00:37,360 --> 00:00:40,920
Speaker 1: of the watchdog group called Crew. It's the Citizens for

14
00:00:41,000 --> 00:00:43,240
Speaker 1: Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and it's one of the

15
00:00:43,240 --> 00:00:46,960
Speaker 1: plaintiffs in the case. Richard, Welcome back to the show. Um.

16
00:00:47,040 --> 00:00:49,600
Speaker 1: One of the issues Judge Daniels asked about yesterday was

17
00:00:49,640 --> 00:00:54,000
Speaker 1: basically this, I'll oversimplify significantly. Why is this thing in court?

18
00:00:54,160 --> 00:00:58,560
Speaker 1: The Constitution says that Congress can authorize amoluments, so why

19
00:00:58,640 --> 00:01:01,840
Speaker 1: isn't this something that better off being dealt with in

20
00:01:01,880 --> 00:01:07,040
Speaker 1: the political process rather than the courts. Well, the Constitution

21
00:01:07,560 --> 00:01:11,800
Speaker 1: says that the anybody holding a position of trust with

22
00:01:11,920 --> 00:01:16,679
Speaker 1: the United States government may not receive a present or

23
00:01:16,760 --> 00:01:19,280
Speaker 1: an a monument, in a monument being a profit or

24
00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:25,119
Speaker 1: benefit from a foreign government without the consent of Congress.

25
00:01:25,120 --> 00:01:28,320
Speaker 1: So President Trump has the option of going to Congress

26
00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:31,920
Speaker 1: and asking for consent to receive profits and benefits from

27
00:01:32,040 --> 00:01:35,360
Speaker 1: dealings with foreign governments, whether it's foreign diplomat staying in

28
00:01:35,360 --> 00:01:38,320
Speaker 1: the hotels and running out the ball rooms, or whether

29
00:01:38,360 --> 00:01:42,880
Speaker 1: it's the financial support that the Trump business empire very

30
00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:46,640
Speaker 1: likely guests from banks controlled by foreign governments. We know

31
00:01:46,720 --> 00:01:50,200
Speaker 1: about the Bank of China extending some substantial loans, and

32
00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:53,000
Speaker 1: there may very well be others and sovereign wealth funds.

33
00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:56,520
Speaker 1: So he could go to Congress for permission. But when

34
00:01:56,520 --> 00:02:00,360
Speaker 1: he doesn't do that, he's in violation of the Constitution. Uh.

35
00:02:00,400 --> 00:02:05,880
Speaker 1: And we are asking the judge to require the President

36
00:02:06,280 --> 00:02:10,360
Speaker 1: in a junction to have to comply with the amoluments clause,

37
00:02:10,440 --> 00:02:13,320
Speaker 1: not accept profits or benefits from doings with foreign governments,

38
00:02:13,400 --> 00:02:15,639
Speaker 1: or do what the Constitution says he must do, which

39
00:02:15,680 --> 00:02:18,920
Speaker 1: is to go to Congress and get permission. Uh. And

40
00:02:19,040 --> 00:02:21,680
Speaker 1: that's what we're opening the judge is going to do, Richard.

41
00:02:21,840 --> 00:02:26,079
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is arguing that Crew and other plaintiffs

42
00:02:26,440 --> 00:02:30,120
Speaker 1: lacked the legal standing to sue that they you can't

43
00:02:30,160 --> 00:02:33,720
Speaker 1: claim the kind of injury from his alleged violation of

44
00:02:33,760 --> 00:02:38,240
Speaker 1: the emoluments clause that's needed. How do you answer that, Well,

45
00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:41,480
Speaker 1: we believe we do have a standing under the standing

46
00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:45,200
Speaker 1: case law in the Second Circuit, UH, where we have

47
00:02:45,240 --> 00:02:47,600
Speaker 1: brought the case in the Southern District of New York.

48
00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:51,440
Speaker 1: We are a government reform group that is focused on

49
00:02:51,560 --> 00:02:55,359
Speaker 1: campaign finance or evolving door and other corruption problems in

50
00:02:55,480 --> 00:02:59,360
Speaker 1: government for a well over a decade, and we have

51
00:02:59,520 --> 00:03:04,000
Speaker 1: had the very substantive resources dealing with this new avenue

52
00:03:04,040 --> 00:03:08,959
Speaker 1: and very dangerous avenue corruption that the founders anticipated when

53
00:03:08,960 --> 00:03:12,480
Speaker 1: they drafted the miama's clause. Uh. And that is foreign

54
00:03:12,560 --> 00:03:15,919
Speaker 1: governments seeking to influence, you know, I States government officials

55
00:03:15,919 --> 00:03:21,120
Speaker 1: through unconstitutional payments on profits and benefits. And so we

56
00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:23,040
Speaker 1: believe we do have standing and that's one of the

57
00:03:23,080 --> 00:03:26,960
Speaker 1: issues that Judge Daniels is gonna have to the thought Richard,

58
00:03:26,960 --> 00:03:29,600
Speaker 1: if Judge Daniels. Lets this suit go forward and we

59
00:03:29,639 --> 00:03:33,000
Speaker 1: get to the so called discovery stage. Talk to me

60
00:03:33,040 --> 00:03:37,080
Speaker 1: about how that would work. Um, Your allegations in the

61
00:03:37,120 --> 00:03:41,040
Speaker 1: complaints go into things like, you know, why the president

62
00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:45,280
Speaker 1: made certain decisions. Um, are we gonna have to, you know,

63
00:03:45,360 --> 00:03:48,920
Speaker 1: have these knockdown, drag out fights over whether the president

64
00:03:49,280 --> 00:03:53,720
Speaker 1: has to turn over material that goes to whether he

65
00:03:53,840 --> 00:03:57,640
Speaker 1: did something because a foreign government gave him some sort

66
00:03:57,680 --> 00:04:01,480
Speaker 1: of gift or favor. I. I I think it's up to

67
00:04:01,520 --> 00:04:06,400
Speaker 1: the judge to decide what the discovery is permitted and

68
00:04:06,400 --> 00:04:09,960
Speaker 1: what is relevant to the case. But remember that Minamas

69
00:04:10,000 --> 00:04:13,800
Speaker 1: clauses a flat prohibition on profits uh and benefits from

70
00:04:13,840 --> 00:04:16,400
Speaker 1: dealings with foreign governments. The entire point is to not

71
00:04:16,520 --> 00:04:20,120
Speaker 1: have to get into a question of whether the president

72
00:04:20,240 --> 00:04:23,360
Speaker 1: is being bribed or any other government officials being bribed,

73
00:04:23,480 --> 00:04:27,320
Speaker 1: whether they're doing something in government because of foreign government money.

74
00:04:27,720 --> 00:04:31,600
Speaker 1: It's just a flat prohibition on receiving profits and benefits

75
00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:34,960
Speaker 1: from dealings with foreign governments and presents from foreign governments

76
00:04:35,000 --> 00:04:39,160
Speaker 1: without the consent of Congress. Uh So, someone who does

77
00:04:39,320 --> 00:04:43,360
Speaker 1: receive such benefits and profits without the extent of Congress

78
00:04:43,520 --> 00:04:46,440
Speaker 1: is in violation of the Monuments clause regardless of what

79
00:04:46,880 --> 00:04:49,800
Speaker 1: he or she does as the United States government officials.

80
00:04:49,839 --> 00:04:53,960
Speaker 1: So we have illustrated the specific examples as to why

81
00:04:54,000 --> 00:04:57,960
Speaker 1: we think that Minama's clause is so important to preventing corruption.

82
00:04:58,040 --> 00:05:00,960
Speaker 1: But I don't think that we need to show or

83
00:05:01,000 --> 00:05:04,000
Speaker 1: anybody needs to show that a particular official action was

84
00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:08,240
Speaker 1: actually influenced by the foreign government. The point of the

85
00:05:08,320 --> 00:05:10,600
Speaker 1: founder the draft the constitutions to make sure we're not

86
00:05:10,720 --> 00:05:13,800
Speaker 1: in the situation, but that could even be a possibility. Okay,

87
00:05:13,839 --> 00:05:15,279
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to leave it there, but I know

88
00:05:15,320 --> 00:05:18,320
Speaker 1: we're gonna be talking more because this is a big case,

89
00:05:18,360 --> 00:05:21,520
Speaker 1: big issue, uh, and certainly there will be more developments

90
00:05:21,520 --> 00:05:26,880
Speaker 1: going on. The federal judge yesterday heard arguments uh whether

91
00:05:26,920 --> 00:05:30,400
Speaker 1: the lawsuit against President Trump on the monument's clause can

92
00:05:30,480 --> 00:05:33,040
Speaker 1: go forward. Thanks to our guest Richard Painter, the vice

93
00:05:33,120 --> 00:05:36,839
Speaker 1: chair of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics

94
00:05:36,839 --> 00:05:38,920
Speaker 1: in Washington, that's one of the groups behind the suit.

95
00:05:39,440 --> 00:05:41,440
Speaker 1: Coming up on Bloomberg Law, we're going to talk about

96
00:05:41,440 --> 00:05:44,560
Speaker 1: what if anything, we learned about the Russia investigation from

97
00:05:44,640 --> 00:05:48,160
Speaker 1: the testimony yesterday on Capitol Hill by Attorney General Jeff sessions,