WEBVTT - Trump Emoluments Case Puts Court in Uncharted Territory (Audio)

0:00:00.240 --> 0:00:03.360
<v Speaker 1>The leading case over President Trump's financial interests went before

0:00:03.360 --> 0:00:05.720
<v Speaker 1>a federal judge in New York on Wednesday. The suit

0:00:05.720 --> 0:00:09.520
<v Speaker 1>accuses the president of violating the Constitution's emoluments clause, which

0:00:09.520 --> 0:00:13.400
<v Speaker 1>bars federal officials from accepting things of value from foreign governments.

0:00:13.920 --> 0:00:17.000
<v Speaker 1>Among the allegations, the suit claims foreign officials are occurring

0:00:17.079 --> 0:00:19.680
<v Speaker 1>favor with the president by staying at the Trump International

0:00:19.680 --> 0:00:22.960
<v Speaker 1>Hotel in Washington and by providing his business with valuable

0:00:23.000 --> 0:00:26.920
<v Speaker 1>trademark protection in China. Judge George Daniels said, hill the

0:00:26.960 --> 0:00:29.080
<v Speaker 1>side in the next thirty to sixty days whether the

0:00:29.120 --> 0:00:31.880
<v Speaker 1>suit can go forward. Our guest today is one of

0:00:31.880 --> 0:00:35.080
<v Speaker 1>the people behind the suit. He is Richard Painter, professor

0:00:35.120 --> 0:00:37.320
<v Speaker 1>at the University of Minnesota Law School and vice chairman

0:00:37.360 --> 0:00:40.920
<v Speaker 1>of the watchdog group called Crew. It's the Citizens for

0:00:41.000 --> 0:00:43.240
<v Speaker 1>Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and it's one of the

0:00:43.240 --> 0:00:46.960
<v Speaker 1>plaintiffs in the case. Richard, Welcome back to the show. Um.

0:00:47.040 --> 0:00:49.600
<v Speaker 1>One of the issues Judge Daniels asked about yesterday was

0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:54.000
<v Speaker 1>basically this, I'll oversimplify significantly. Why is this thing in court?

0:00:54.160 --> 0:00:58.560
<v Speaker 1>The Constitution says that Congress can authorize amoluments, so why

0:00:58.640 --> 0:01:01.840
<v Speaker 1>isn't this something that better off being dealt with in

0:01:01.880 --> 0:01:07.040
<v Speaker 1>the political process rather than the courts. Well, the Constitution

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:11.800
<v Speaker 1>says that the anybody holding a position of trust with

0:01:11.920 --> 0:01:16.679
<v Speaker 1>the United States government may not receive a present or

0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:19.280
<v Speaker 1>an a monument, in a monument being a profit or

0:01:19.280 --> 0:01:25.119
<v Speaker 1>benefit from a foreign government without the consent of Congress.

0:01:25.120 --> 0:01:28.320
<v Speaker 1>So President Trump has the option of going to Congress

0:01:28.319 --> 0:01:31.920
<v Speaker 1>and asking for consent to receive profits and benefits from

0:01:32.040 --> 0:01:35.360
<v Speaker 1>dealings with foreign governments, whether it's foreign diplomat staying in

0:01:35.360 --> 0:01:38.320
<v Speaker 1>the hotels and running out the ball rooms, or whether

0:01:38.360 --> 0:01:42.880
<v Speaker 1>it's the financial support that the Trump business empire very

0:01:42.920 --> 0:01:46.640
<v Speaker 1>likely guests from banks controlled by foreign governments. We know

0:01:46.720 --> 0:01:50.200
<v Speaker 1>about the Bank of China extending some substantial loans, and

0:01:50.240 --> 0:01:53.000
<v Speaker 1>there may very well be others and sovereign wealth funds.

0:01:53.040 --> 0:01:56.520
<v Speaker 1>So he could go to Congress for permission. But when

0:01:56.520 --> 0:02:00.360
<v Speaker 1>he doesn't do that, he's in violation of the Constitution. Uh.

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:05.880
<v Speaker 1>And we are asking the judge to require the President

0:02:06.280 --> 0:02:10.360
<v Speaker 1>in a junction to have to comply with the amoluments clause,

0:02:10.440 --> 0:02:13.320
<v Speaker 1>not accept profits or benefits from doings with foreign governments,

0:02:13.400 --> 0:02:15.639
<v Speaker 1>or do what the Constitution says he must do, which

0:02:15.680 --> 0:02:18.920
<v Speaker 1>is to go to Congress and get permission. Uh. And

0:02:19.040 --> 0:02:21.680
<v Speaker 1>that's what we're opening the judge is going to do, Richard.

0:02:21.840 --> 0:02:26.079
<v Speaker 1>The Trump administration is arguing that Crew and other plaintiffs

0:02:26.440 --> 0:02:30.120
<v Speaker 1>lacked the legal standing to sue that they you can't

0:02:30.160 --> 0:02:33.720
<v Speaker 1>claim the kind of injury from his alleged violation of

0:02:33.760 --> 0:02:38.240
<v Speaker 1>the emoluments clause that's needed. How do you answer that, Well,

0:02:38.280 --> 0:02:41.480
<v Speaker 1>we believe we do have a standing under the standing

0:02:41.560 --> 0:02:45.200
<v Speaker 1>case law in the Second Circuit, UH, where we have

0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:47.600
<v Speaker 1>brought the case in the Southern District of New York.

0:02:48.120 --> 0:02:51.440
<v Speaker 1>We are a government reform group that is focused on

0:02:51.560 --> 0:02:55.359
<v Speaker 1>campaign finance or evolving door and other corruption problems in

0:02:55.480 --> 0:02:59.360
<v Speaker 1>government for a well over a decade, and we have

0:02:59.520 --> 0:03:04.000
<v Speaker 1>had the very substantive resources dealing with this new avenue

0:03:04.040 --> 0:03:08.959
<v Speaker 1>and very dangerous avenue corruption that the founders anticipated when

0:03:08.960 --> 0:03:12.480
<v Speaker 1>they drafted the miama's clause. Uh. And that is foreign

0:03:12.560 --> 0:03:15.919
<v Speaker 1>governments seeking to influence, you know, I States government officials

0:03:15.919 --> 0:03:21.120
<v Speaker 1>through unconstitutional payments on profits and benefits. And so we

0:03:21.160 --> 0:03:23.040
<v Speaker 1>believe we do have standing and that's one of the

0:03:23.080 --> 0:03:26.960
<v Speaker 1>issues that Judge Daniels is gonna have to the thought Richard,

0:03:26.960 --> 0:03:29.600
<v Speaker 1>if Judge Daniels. Lets this suit go forward and we

0:03:29.639 --> 0:03:33.000
<v Speaker 1>get to the so called discovery stage. Talk to me

0:03:33.040 --> 0:03:37.080
<v Speaker 1>about how that would work. Um, Your allegations in the

0:03:37.120 --> 0:03:41.040
<v Speaker 1>complaints go into things like, you know, why the president

0:03:41.120 --> 0:03:45.280
<v Speaker 1>made certain decisions. Um, are we gonna have to, you know,

0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:48.920
<v Speaker 1>have these knockdown, drag out fights over whether the president

0:03:49.280 --> 0:03:53.720
<v Speaker 1>has to turn over material that goes to whether he

0:03:53.840 --> 0:03:57.640
<v Speaker 1>did something because a foreign government gave him some sort

0:03:57.680 --> 0:04:01.480
<v Speaker 1>of gift or favor. I. I I think it's up to

0:04:01.520 --> 0:04:06.400
<v Speaker 1>the judge to decide what the discovery is permitted and

0:04:06.400 --> 0:04:09.960
<v Speaker 1>what is relevant to the case. But remember that Minamas

0:04:10.000 --> 0:04:13.800
<v Speaker 1>clauses a flat prohibition on profits uh and benefits from

0:04:13.840 --> 0:04:16.400
<v Speaker 1>dealings with foreign governments. The entire point is to not

0:04:16.520 --> 0:04:20.120
<v Speaker 1>have to get into a question of whether the president

0:04:20.240 --> 0:04:23.360
<v Speaker 1>is being bribed or any other government officials being bribed,

0:04:23.480 --> 0:04:27.320
<v Speaker 1>whether they're doing something in government because of foreign government money.

0:04:27.720 --> 0:04:31.600
<v Speaker 1>It's just a flat prohibition on receiving profits and benefits

0:04:32.160 --> 0:04:34.960
<v Speaker 1>from dealings with foreign governments and presents from foreign governments

0:04:35.000 --> 0:04:39.160
<v Speaker 1>without the consent of Congress. Uh So, someone who does

0:04:39.320 --> 0:04:43.360
<v Speaker 1>receive such benefits and profits without the extent of Congress

0:04:43.520 --> 0:04:46.440
<v Speaker 1>is in violation of the Monuments clause regardless of what

0:04:46.880 --> 0:04:49.800
<v Speaker 1>he or she does as the United States government officials.

0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:53.960
<v Speaker 1>So we have illustrated the specific examples as to why

0:04:54.000 --> 0:04:57.960
<v Speaker 1>we think that Minama's clause is so important to preventing corruption.

0:04:58.040 --> 0:05:00.960
<v Speaker 1>But I don't think that we need to show or

0:05:01.000 --> 0:05:04.000
<v Speaker 1>anybody needs to show that a particular official action was

0:05:04.040 --> 0:05:08.240
<v Speaker 1>actually influenced by the foreign government. The point of the

0:05:08.320 --> 0:05:10.600
<v Speaker 1>founder the draft the constitutions to make sure we're not

0:05:10.720 --> 0:05:13.800
<v Speaker 1>in the situation, but that could even be a possibility. Okay,

0:05:13.839 --> 0:05:15.279
<v Speaker 1>we're gonna have to leave it there, but I know

0:05:15.320 --> 0:05:18.320
<v Speaker 1>we're gonna be talking more because this is a big case,

0:05:18.360 --> 0:05:21.520
<v Speaker 1>big issue, uh, and certainly there will be more developments

0:05:21.520 --> 0:05:26.880
<v Speaker 1>going on. The federal judge yesterday heard arguments uh whether

0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:30.400
<v Speaker 1>the lawsuit against President Trump on the monument's clause can

0:05:30.480 --> 0:05:33.040
<v Speaker 1>go forward. Thanks to our guest Richard Painter, the vice

0:05:33.120 --> 0:05:36.839
<v Speaker 1>chair of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics

0:05:36.839 --> 0:05:38.920
<v Speaker 1>in Washington, that's one of the groups behind the suit.

0:05:39.440 --> 0:05:41.440
<v Speaker 1>Coming up on Bloomberg Law, we're going to talk about

0:05:41.440 --> 0:05:44.560
<v Speaker 1>what if anything, we learned about the Russia investigation from

0:05:44.640 --> 0:05:48.160
<v Speaker 1>the testimony yesterday on Capitol Hill by Attorney General Jeff sessions,