1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,039 --> 00:00:13,720
Speaker 1: Former Trump campaign chairman Steve Bannon was defiant and combative

3
00:00:14,120 --> 00:00:17,720
Speaker 1: after appearing before a judge to face criminal contempt charges

4
00:00:18,079 --> 00:00:21,560
Speaker 1: for ignoring subpoenas from the House committee investigating the US

5
00:00:21,680 --> 00:00:25,320
Speaker 1: Capital Riot. I'm telling you right now, this is gonna

6
00:00:25,320 --> 00:00:29,160
Speaker 1: be the misdemeanor from hell for Marrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi,

7
00:00:29,400 --> 00:00:33,120
Speaker 1: and Joe Biden retired to playing defense. We're gonna go

8
00:00:33,159 --> 00:00:36,440
Speaker 1: on the offense on this and stand by. Contempt of

9
00:00:36,520 --> 00:00:40,879
Speaker 1: Congress charges are rare and politically messy, something that Johnson's

10
00:00:40,920 --> 00:00:46,440
Speaker 1: department hasn't pursued since joining me as former federal prosecutor.

11
00:00:46,560 --> 00:00:49,920
Speaker 1: Robert Mentz a partner McCarter and English is the do

12
00:00:50,080 --> 00:00:55,280
Speaker 1: O J on solid footing here with this prosecution. Given

13
00:00:55,320 --> 00:00:58,880
Speaker 1: Bannon's complete failure to even engage with the committee, he

14
00:00:59,080 --> 00:01:02,960
Speaker 1: virtually in a did Congress to seek criminal contempt charges

15
00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:06,280
Speaker 1: against him and really placed the Department of Justice in

16
00:01:06,319 --> 00:01:09,040
Speaker 1: a difficult position. If this is a case in which

17
00:01:09,040 --> 00:01:11,920
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice was not going to act to

18
00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:15,240
Speaker 1: hold somebody in criminal contempt and to seek an indictment

19
00:01:15,280 --> 00:01:18,560
Speaker 1: against them. For violating the congressional subpoena, and then it's

20
00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:21,480
Speaker 1: hard to imagine a case that would justify that action

21
00:01:22,160 --> 00:01:25,520
Speaker 1: outside the courthouse. He said a few things. One, he said,

22
00:01:25,800 --> 00:01:28,280
Speaker 1: this is going to be the misdemeanor from hell for

23
00:01:28,440 --> 00:01:32,560
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. We're going to

24
00:01:32,600 --> 00:01:36,280
Speaker 1: go on the offense. What can he actually do besides

25
00:01:36,360 --> 00:01:40,160
Speaker 1: file motions. Well, he can file motions, and he can

26
00:01:40,360 --> 00:01:43,920
Speaker 1: actually make this case a bit more complicated than it

27
00:01:43,959 --> 00:01:48,080
Speaker 1: may appear on the surface, because ultimately, the test here

28
00:01:48,560 --> 00:01:52,200
Speaker 1: is not really whether or not Bannon's interpretation of the

29
00:01:52,280 --> 00:01:56,360
Speaker 1: law is correct, but whether prosecutors can prove beyond a

30
00:01:56,400 --> 00:02:00,680
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt that Bannon did not believe his assertion privilege

31
00:02:00,920 --> 00:02:03,000
Speaker 1: to be credible. In other words, did he have a

32
00:02:03,040 --> 00:02:07,200
Speaker 1: good face basis to assert executive privilege and refuse to

33
00:02:07,240 --> 00:02:10,560
Speaker 1: cooperate with the committee even if ultimately it turns out

34
00:02:10,680 --> 00:02:13,720
Speaker 1: that his claim of privilege is overturned by the courts

35
00:02:13,919 --> 00:02:16,440
Speaker 1: and he would be forced to testify, how can they

36
00:02:16,480 --> 00:02:20,000
Speaker 1: prove what he believed or didn't believe about the executive

37
00:02:20,040 --> 00:02:24,200
Speaker 1: privilege claim. Well, in order for him to rely on

38
00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:27,560
Speaker 1: executive privilege, he would have to assert what's called an

39
00:02:27,560 --> 00:02:30,960
Speaker 1: advice of counsel defense. In other words, he would have

40
00:02:31,040 --> 00:02:33,960
Speaker 1: to argue that he was not testifying based on the

41
00:02:34,000 --> 00:02:37,760
Speaker 1: advice of his lawyer, who told him that executive privilege

42
00:02:37,800 --> 00:02:40,640
Speaker 1: applaud and he did not have to appear to testify

43
00:02:40,840 --> 00:02:43,200
Speaker 1: before the House. In order to do that, he has

44
00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:46,359
Speaker 1: to waive his attorney client privilege with his lawyer and

45
00:02:46,440 --> 00:02:49,240
Speaker 1: put his lawyer on the stand to talk about the

46
00:02:49,240 --> 00:02:51,760
Speaker 1: advice that his lawyer gave him. That's a bit of

47
00:02:51,760 --> 00:02:55,799
Speaker 1: a risky proposition because it opens up to prosecutors any

48
00:02:55,800 --> 00:02:59,040
Speaker 1: conversation that Bandon may have had was his attorney during

49
00:02:59,080 --> 00:03:02,639
Speaker 1: the scope of the rep presentation. But ultimately prosecutors will

50
00:03:02,680 --> 00:03:06,680
Speaker 1: have to show that his reliance on executive privilege was

51
00:03:06,800 --> 00:03:10,320
Speaker 1: not a good faith defense and that he was simply

52
00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:14,600
Speaker 1: trying to avoid his obligation to testify, rather than relying

53
00:03:14,639 --> 00:03:17,359
Speaker 1: on his lawyer's advice that he didn't have to testify

54
00:03:17,440 --> 00:03:21,239
Speaker 1: based upon executive privilege. I suppose that's what his current

55
00:03:21,360 --> 00:03:24,880
Speaker 1: lawyer was referring to outside the courthouse when he said

56
00:03:25,320 --> 00:03:28,160
Speaker 1: Mr Bannon is a lay person when the privilege has

57
00:03:28,200 --> 00:03:30,760
Speaker 1: been invoked by the purported holder of privilege, he has

58
00:03:30,800 --> 00:03:33,880
Speaker 1: no choice but to withhold the documents and said that

59
00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:36,680
Speaker 1: his lawyer told him to do so. Well, that's the

60
00:03:36,680 --> 00:03:40,840
Speaker 1: only partially true, because executive privilege, while it may be

61
00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:43,400
Speaker 1: in question in this case, is something that is not

62
00:03:43,520 --> 00:03:46,880
Speaker 1: asserted in a blanket fashion. In other words, he should

63
00:03:46,880 --> 00:03:49,920
Speaker 1: have appeared before the committee, his lawyer should have negotiated

64
00:03:49,920 --> 00:03:52,640
Speaker 1: with the committee to try to work around his claim

65
00:03:52,680 --> 00:03:55,400
Speaker 1: of executive privilege. And if he is going to assert

66
00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:58,240
Speaker 1: executive privilege, or any other privilege for that matter, he

67
00:03:58,320 --> 00:04:01,440
Speaker 1: has to do it on a question by question basis

68
00:04:01,560 --> 00:04:05,160
Speaker 1: or a document by document basis. It's not appropriate to

69
00:04:05,160 --> 00:04:08,400
Speaker 1: assert a privilege simply by failing to appear, or in

70
00:04:08,440 --> 00:04:10,840
Speaker 1: this case, he didn't even show up when he was

71
00:04:10,880 --> 00:04:14,720
Speaker 1: supposed to testify and only later asserted the privilege. And

72
00:04:14,720 --> 00:04:17,679
Speaker 1: in doing so, you simply cannot say that I'm asserting

73
00:04:17,720 --> 00:04:20,920
Speaker 1: privilege as to all questions that may be asked when

74
00:04:20,960 --> 00:04:23,760
Speaker 1: I appear before the committee, because the committee could certainly

75
00:04:23,760 --> 00:04:26,520
Speaker 1: ask him questions that are not covered by the executive

76
00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:29,280
Speaker 1: privilege or any other privilege, and he has an obligation

77
00:04:29,320 --> 00:04:31,839
Speaker 1: to show up and answer those questions. And if he

78
00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:33,880
Speaker 1: wants to assert privilege. It should be done on a

79
00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:37,680
Speaker 1: question by question or document by document basis. There are

80
00:04:37,680 --> 00:04:40,440
Speaker 1: a couple of things going on. He hasn't worked at

81
00:04:40,440 --> 00:04:44,039
Speaker 1: the White House for years, and he has refused to

82
00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:48,080
Speaker 1: answer any questions that the committee wants to ask him.

83
00:04:48,120 --> 00:04:50,080
Speaker 1: So there are some questions that are going to be

84
00:04:50,200 --> 00:04:54,920
Speaker 1: outside things he discussed with Donald Trump. Well, that's exactly right,

85
00:04:54,960 --> 00:04:57,320
Speaker 1: and that's the reason why we have not seen an

86
00:04:57,320 --> 00:05:01,440
Speaker 1: indictment on contempt of Congress charges in this country since

87
00:05:01,600 --> 00:05:05,520
Speaker 1: nine three. It's just not something that happens very often

88
00:05:05,760 --> 00:05:08,880
Speaker 1: because it's a messy power. It's something that's not used

89
00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:12,960
Speaker 1: by Congress frequently. Instead, what happens is there's usually a

90
00:05:12,960 --> 00:05:16,200
Speaker 1: bit of a negotiation. The lawyer for the witness reaches

91
00:05:16,240 --> 00:05:18,400
Speaker 1: out to the lawyers on the committee and they try

92
00:05:18,480 --> 00:05:21,800
Speaker 1: to negotiate around these privileged claims. That's something that we've

93
00:05:21,839 --> 00:05:25,040
Speaker 1: seen the other witnesses who have been subpoena to testify

94
00:05:25,080 --> 00:05:28,320
Speaker 1: before the committee try to do. In this case, Bannon,

95
00:05:28,440 --> 00:05:32,120
Speaker 1: simply stone Wall of the Committee, did not cooperate, did

96
00:05:32,120 --> 00:05:36,080
Speaker 1: not respond, his lawyer, did not engage, simply try to

97
00:05:36,160 --> 00:05:41,080
Speaker 1: assert a blanket privileged claim, and flatly refused to cooperate

98
00:05:41,120 --> 00:05:44,680
Speaker 1: in any manner. He was essentially begging the Committee to

99
00:05:44,720 --> 00:05:48,839
Speaker 1: make this referral and testing Merrick Garland as to whether

100
00:05:48,920 --> 00:05:51,839
Speaker 1: or not he would do something that hadn't been done

101
00:05:52,040 --> 00:05:54,200
Speaker 1: in many, many years, and that is to indicte him

102
00:05:54,240 --> 00:05:57,480
Speaker 1: for criminal contempt for failing to appear before Congress. Could

103
00:05:57,560 --> 00:06:01,280
Speaker 1: this backfire on the committee? Well? Could backfire in the

104
00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:05,000
Speaker 1: sense that this will be a long drawn out process.

105
00:06:05,080 --> 00:06:08,080
Speaker 1: This is now a criminal case where motions will be

106
00:06:08,120 --> 00:06:12,120
Speaker 1: filed and there will be discovery exchanged, and ultimately, if

107
00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:16,000
Speaker 1: Mr Bannon takes this to the final hour, it will

108
00:06:16,040 --> 00:06:19,479
Speaker 1: be a trial which may not happen for months or

109
00:06:19,560 --> 00:06:22,400
Speaker 1: even over a year. And the problem that the House

110
00:06:22,400 --> 00:06:25,240
Speaker 1: Committee is facing is that they are under a bit

111
00:06:25,279 --> 00:06:29,200
Speaker 1: of a timeline here because the mid term elections could

112
00:06:29,279 --> 00:06:33,360
Speaker 1: ultimately turn the House over from the Democrats to the Republicans,

113
00:06:33,520 --> 00:06:36,760
Speaker 1: and that would undoubtedly end the life of this committee,

114
00:06:37,000 --> 00:06:41,880
Speaker 1: and the House could then simply withdraw the subpoena. The

115
00:06:41,920 --> 00:06:46,359
Speaker 1: unofficial deadline for this is the twenty two mid term elections,

116
00:06:46,400 --> 00:06:50,359
Speaker 1: because the Committee will probably be disbanded after that. But

117
00:06:50,839 --> 00:06:54,640
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean the prosecution against Bannon stops, does it.

118
00:06:54,800 --> 00:06:57,880
Speaker 1: That's in the hands of the Justice Department. No, that's right.

119
00:06:58,200 --> 00:07:00,640
Speaker 1: It simply means that it could take a long time

120
00:07:00,760 --> 00:07:04,560
Speaker 1: before the Banning cases ultimately resolved through the legal system.

121
00:07:04,600 --> 00:07:08,120
Speaker 1: The last time we saw someone challenge a congressional subpoena

122
00:07:08,200 --> 00:07:11,840
Speaker 1: during the Trump administration, former White House Council Donagan was

123
00:07:11,880 --> 00:07:17,160
Speaker 1: subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee in April of Ultimately,

124
00:07:17,160 --> 00:07:20,520
Speaker 1: he did not testify for over two years later, so

125
00:07:20,560 --> 00:07:22,840
Speaker 1: this could be a long drawn out process, and in

126
00:07:22,920 --> 00:07:25,400
Speaker 1: the end, it's not even clear that they will get

127
00:07:25,440 --> 00:07:29,080
Speaker 1: Banning to testify because the contempt would simply put him

128
00:07:29,080 --> 00:07:31,880
Speaker 1: in jail for a minimum of one month and up

129
00:07:31,920 --> 00:07:34,040
Speaker 1: to a year on each of the two counts, but

130
00:07:34,160 --> 00:07:37,520
Speaker 1: it's still does not force him to appear before the

131
00:07:37,520 --> 00:07:41,560
Speaker 1: committee to testify, and at the midterm elections, should the

132
00:07:41,600 --> 00:07:45,640
Speaker 1: House turn over to the Republicans, the committee would likely

133
00:07:45,680 --> 00:07:48,200
Speaker 1: be disbanded and there would be no committee left for

134
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:51,280
Speaker 1: him to be forced to testify in front of. Even

135
00:07:51,280 --> 00:07:54,840
Speaker 1: the committee members are saying that doing this is sort

136
00:07:54,880 --> 00:07:59,160
Speaker 1: of a warning to other people who might choose to

137
00:07:59,160 --> 00:08:04,040
Speaker 1: defy the committee requests for information, and former Trump White

138
00:08:04,040 --> 00:08:07,400
Speaker 1: House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows failed to appear for

139
00:08:07,440 --> 00:08:11,160
Speaker 1: a deposition on Friday, and he said that he's exerted

140
00:08:11,200 --> 00:08:14,560
Speaker 1: and rightfully so his executive privilege and it's not up

141
00:08:14,600 --> 00:08:16,920
Speaker 1: to me to wave it. And so it's got me

142
00:08:16,960 --> 00:08:20,920
Speaker 1: between a rock and a hard space. Does President Trump

143
00:08:20,960 --> 00:08:23,760
Speaker 1: have any real hold on him with these claims of

144
00:08:23,840 --> 00:08:30,240
Speaker 1: executive privilege, Well, the privilege belongs to the executive branch.

145
00:08:30,520 --> 00:08:32,960
Speaker 1: So the question here is whether it belongs to the

146
00:08:33,000 --> 00:08:36,800
Speaker 1: current White House. President Biden has waived executive privilege to

147
00:08:36,840 --> 00:08:40,320
Speaker 1: allow the committee to continue its investigation, or whether or

148
00:08:40,320 --> 00:08:44,480
Speaker 1: not the former president still has some residual privilege that

149
00:08:44,520 --> 00:08:47,960
Speaker 1: he can assert. There actually is some legal president for

150
00:08:48,200 --> 00:08:52,080
Speaker 1: some limited privilege for a president even after he left office,

151
00:08:52,360 --> 00:08:55,120
Speaker 1: So that issue will have to ultimately be decided by

152
00:08:55,120 --> 00:08:58,160
Speaker 1: the courts and in the interim. Mark Meadows, who was

153
00:08:58,240 --> 00:09:01,200
Speaker 1: President Trump's chief of staff, who was working in the

154
00:09:01,240 --> 00:09:04,800
Speaker 1: White House on January six, is taking the position that

155
00:09:04,920 --> 00:09:08,079
Speaker 1: that issue has to be resolved before he can come

156
00:09:08,120 --> 00:09:11,400
Speaker 1: before Congress and testify. But he has taken a very

157
00:09:11,400 --> 00:09:14,960
Speaker 1: different approach than Bannon. He has engaged with the committee,

158
00:09:15,160 --> 00:09:17,480
Speaker 1: his lawyer has engaged with the committee. They have attempted

159
00:09:17,520 --> 00:09:21,199
Speaker 1: to work out some areas of inquiry that he could answer,

160
00:09:21,320 --> 00:09:24,160
Speaker 1: some documents that he could turn over. That is the

161
00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:27,800
Speaker 1: way these things typically go forward. It's really a situation

162
00:09:27,840 --> 00:09:31,200
Speaker 1: with Steve Bannon where he is almost begging Congress to

163
00:09:31,200 --> 00:09:34,200
Speaker 1: hold him in contempt and almost begging the Department of

164
00:09:34,240 --> 00:09:36,960
Speaker 1: Justice to indict him. So in some ways he got

165
00:09:37,000 --> 00:09:39,720
Speaker 1: exactly what he asked for. But in the end, will

166
00:09:39,720 --> 00:09:43,000
Speaker 1: it force Bannon to testify? Probably not. Bannon is wearing

167
00:09:43,040 --> 00:09:46,040
Speaker 1: this indictment like a badge of honor. It's something that

168
00:09:46,240 --> 00:09:49,440
Speaker 1: he not only was inviting but now seems to be

169
00:09:49,520 --> 00:09:53,120
Speaker 1: reveling in. And ultimately, if he's convicted, he may spend

170
00:09:53,120 --> 00:09:55,200
Speaker 1: some time in jail, but there's no way to force

171
00:09:55,280 --> 00:09:58,040
Speaker 1: him to appear before that committee and give testimony. Well,

172
00:09:58,040 --> 00:10:00,679
Speaker 1: he came to the courthouse with his own camera crew,

173
00:10:01,679 --> 00:10:05,560
Speaker 1: so he's enjoying this and he's using it to pump

174
00:10:05,679 --> 00:10:11,080
Speaker 1: up his podcast. So now Mark Meadows, the committee said

175
00:10:11,679 --> 00:10:15,079
Speaker 1: in a statement that he failed to show. He's refused

176
00:10:15,080 --> 00:10:18,800
Speaker 1: to even indicate whether he used a personal cell phone

177
00:10:18,840 --> 00:10:23,400
Speaker 1: on January six, and how lawmakers might retrieve his text messages.

178
00:10:23,760 --> 00:10:27,160
Speaker 1: So it doesn't sound like it's much cooperation going on.

179
00:10:27,640 --> 00:10:30,000
Speaker 1: I know it is, and it's more than Bannon and

180
00:10:30,200 --> 00:10:34,720
Speaker 1: his lawyer engaged, and but he's still essentially refusing to cooperate.

181
00:10:34,960 --> 00:10:37,960
Speaker 1: The problem is that the case against Meadows is not

182
00:10:38,120 --> 00:10:41,280
Speaker 1: quite as strong as it is against Bannon because Meadows

183
00:10:41,440 --> 00:10:43,840
Speaker 1: was working in the White House at the time, and

184
00:10:44,000 --> 00:10:46,880
Speaker 1: much of the questioning to Meadows has to do with

185
00:10:46,960 --> 00:10:50,160
Speaker 1: advice that he may have given to the President on

186
00:10:50,280 --> 00:10:53,480
Speaker 1: January six, although it's also clear from the subtina that

187
00:10:53,480 --> 00:10:56,440
Speaker 1: went to Mark Meadows that the committee is also seeking

188
00:10:56,520 --> 00:11:00,560
Speaker 1: information not only about the January six insurrection, but also

189
00:11:00,600 --> 00:11:04,480
Speaker 1: about events that happened subsequently, which as the President's phone

190
00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:07,880
Speaker 1: call to the Secretary of Stating Georgia after the election,

191
00:11:08,120 --> 00:11:11,640
Speaker 1: and some other steps that were taken after the election

192
00:11:11,880 --> 00:11:14,760
Speaker 1: to try to influence the outcome to try to prevent

193
00:11:15,040 --> 00:11:19,040
Speaker 1: President Biden's election from being certified. So it's abroad subtoena,

194
00:11:19,480 --> 00:11:22,040
Speaker 1: but all in all, it still falls within the question

195
00:11:22,080 --> 00:11:25,960
Speaker 1: of whether or not the president can assert executive privilege

196
00:11:25,960 --> 00:11:28,760
Speaker 1: when he's no longer in office, and that's what Mark

197
00:11:28,800 --> 00:11:32,480
Speaker 1: Meadows is relying on in trying to delay any appearance

198
00:11:32,559 --> 00:11:35,640
Speaker 1: before this committee. And yet he appeared on TV and

199
00:11:35,679 --> 00:11:37,720
Speaker 1: what he said to was you and I both know

200
00:11:37,800 --> 00:11:39,960
Speaker 1: that no one in the West Wing had any knowledge

201
00:11:39,960 --> 00:11:43,120
Speaker 1: of anything like what happened on January six was going

202
00:11:43,160 --> 00:11:45,800
Speaker 1: to happen. I wonder if he's making his case in

203
00:11:45,920 --> 00:11:49,120
Speaker 1: public to tell the committee I don't know anything. Well.

204
00:11:49,160 --> 00:11:51,560
Speaker 1: I think he is trying to signal to the committee

205
00:11:51,600 --> 00:11:54,480
Speaker 1: that there's nothing really there for him to testify about.

206
00:11:54,880 --> 00:11:57,480
Speaker 1: But again, he has to appear before the Committee and

207
00:11:57,559 --> 00:12:00,280
Speaker 1: try to assert the claims of executive privilege on a

208
00:12:00,360 --> 00:12:02,720
Speaker 1: question by question. Bass is something that he has not

209
00:12:02,840 --> 00:12:05,680
Speaker 1: yet agreed to do. We'll have to see how that

210
00:12:05,720 --> 00:12:09,240
Speaker 1: plays out, but ultimately I think the Committee will likely

211
00:12:09,280 --> 00:12:12,600
Speaker 1: come to some compromise position with Mark Meadows, because they're

212
00:12:12,640 --> 00:12:15,560
Speaker 1: really not in a position to seek criminal contempt charges

213
00:12:15,840 --> 00:12:19,559
Speaker 1: against witness after witness after witness. It's something that is

214
00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:22,640
Speaker 1: done very rarely, and it is really more of a

215
00:12:22,679 --> 00:12:26,400
Speaker 1: surgical kind of attack on a particular witness who refuses

216
00:12:26,440 --> 00:12:28,640
Speaker 1: to cooperate. It's not something that can be done in

217
00:12:28,640 --> 00:12:32,600
Speaker 1: a wholesale manner against a group of witnesses who are

218
00:12:32,640 --> 00:12:36,480
Speaker 1: simply refusing to cooperate with the investigation. I know they're

219
00:12:36,520 --> 00:12:40,640
Speaker 1: working under tight deadlines here, but why so many subpoenas

220
00:12:40,840 --> 00:12:45,200
Speaker 1: and is that a good strategy. The Committee has argued

221
00:12:45,240 --> 00:12:48,920
Speaker 1: that subpoenaing thirty five people and interviewing over a hundred

222
00:12:49,000 --> 00:12:53,120
Speaker 1: fifty people was necessary in order to fully investigate the

223
00:12:53,200 --> 00:12:56,400
Speaker 1: events of January six on the days leading up to

224
00:12:56,440 --> 00:12:59,480
Speaker 1: that insurrection. But it is a bit of a risky

225
00:12:59,520 --> 00:13:03,599
Speaker 1: strategy by the Committee because in issuing thirty five subpoenas,

226
00:13:03,600 --> 00:13:08,240
Speaker 1: it's possible that more individuals may simply refuse to cooperate,

227
00:13:08,559 --> 00:13:11,920
Speaker 1: and the Committee cannot hold them all in criminal contempt

228
00:13:12,200 --> 00:13:15,120
Speaker 1: and refer all those cases over to the Justice Department

229
00:13:15,280 --> 00:13:19,000
Speaker 1: and expect Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute all of them.

230
00:13:19,200 --> 00:13:21,040
Speaker 1: So in some ways, it is a bit of a

231
00:13:21,160 --> 00:13:24,360
Speaker 1: risky strategy by casting such a broad net and by

232
00:13:24,360 --> 00:13:27,520
Speaker 1: subpoenaing so many individuals. Will have to see how that

233
00:13:27,640 --> 00:13:30,040
Speaker 1: ultimately plays out. So far, they have gotten quite a

234
00:13:30,040 --> 00:13:32,680
Speaker 1: few people to cooperate, and we don't know how many

235
00:13:32,720 --> 00:13:36,640
Speaker 1: of those thirty five people who received subpoenas have cooperated,

236
00:13:37,000 --> 00:13:39,480
Speaker 1: But it could backfire on them if a number of

237
00:13:39,520 --> 00:13:42,840
Speaker 1: individuals simply refused to cooperate. Because it's as a practical matter,

238
00:13:43,000 --> 00:13:45,880
Speaker 1: it's going to be impossible for the Committee to enforce

239
00:13:45,960 --> 00:13:49,320
Speaker 1: every one of those subpoenas. So, Bob, as you said,

240
00:13:49,440 --> 00:13:54,640
Speaker 1: contempt of Congress charges are rare and politically messy, something

241
00:13:54,800 --> 00:13:59,520
Speaker 1: the Justice Department hasn't pursued since three Give us a

242
00:13:59,559 --> 00:14:02,600
Speaker 1: little of the history here. The road that we're seeing

243
00:14:02,640 --> 00:14:05,240
Speaker 1: Congress go down with regard to Steve Bowden is something

244
00:14:05,280 --> 00:14:08,480
Speaker 1: that Congress does not take lightly and frankly does not

245
00:14:08,640 --> 00:14:12,000
Speaker 1: engage in very often. It happens only and frequently. The

246
00:14:12,080 --> 00:14:15,040
Speaker 1: last time there was a successful prosecution that goes all

247
00:14:15,080 --> 00:14:18,079
Speaker 1: the way back to the Watergate era, when g. Gordon

248
00:14:18,200 --> 00:14:21,680
Speaker 1: Lady and Richard Klindiats were convicted and pleaded guilty for

249
00:14:21,760 --> 00:14:26,160
Speaker 1: refusing to answer Congressional inquiries. The last indictment we saw

250
00:14:26,600 --> 00:14:29,600
Speaker 1: in the contempt of Congress case was three decades ago,

251
00:14:29,760 --> 00:14:34,120
Speaker 1: involving a federal environmental official under President Ronald Reagan who

252
00:14:34,160 --> 00:14:37,560
Speaker 1: failed to respond to a House subpoena. The official, Redal Lavelle,

253
00:14:37,800 --> 00:14:40,280
Speaker 1: who headed the super fun would ultimately go on to

254
00:14:40,280 --> 00:14:43,280
Speaker 1: be acquitted of the contempt charge, but was later convicted

255
00:14:43,560 --> 00:14:46,000
Speaker 1: of lying to Congress and sentenced to six months in

256
00:14:46,040 --> 00:14:49,800
Speaker 1: prison and find ten thousand dollars, But the Justice Department

257
00:14:49,840 --> 00:14:54,760
Speaker 1: historically has been very wary of prosecuting these cases, particularly

258
00:14:54,760 --> 00:14:58,640
Speaker 1: in a situation where the witnesses who are being subpoenaed

259
00:14:58,880 --> 00:15:01,440
Speaker 1: and who are being held in contempt are of the

260
00:15:01,480 --> 00:15:04,680
Speaker 1: opposite political party from the House on the Department of

261
00:15:04,840 --> 00:15:08,640
Speaker 1: Justice that may be considering prosecuting them. And that's because

262
00:15:08,640 --> 00:15:11,440
Speaker 1: this whole process has a bit of a history of

263
00:15:11,520 --> 00:15:18,000
Speaker 1: being fraught with political overtones. Congress use contempt citations during

264
00:15:18,000 --> 00:15:21,040
Speaker 1: the House an American Activities Committee which was formed in

265
00:15:21,160 --> 00:15:26,440
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty eight to investigate individuals and organization first aversive activities,

266
00:15:26,640 --> 00:15:29,600
Speaker 1: particularly those related to the Communist Party. That was a

267
00:15:29,640 --> 00:15:32,280
Speaker 1: case in which many people in the film industry went

268
00:15:32,360 --> 00:15:37,160
Speaker 1: to prison rather than testify about their colleagues who may

269
00:15:37,200 --> 00:15:42,080
Speaker 1: have exhibited support for communist or communist leaning organizations. They

270
00:15:42,120 --> 00:15:45,240
Speaker 1: were blacklisted for their failure to cooperate and is something

271
00:15:45,280 --> 00:15:46,680
Speaker 1: that has been a bit of a stain on the

272
00:15:46,680 --> 00:15:49,640
Speaker 1: House of represented it ever since. So it's something that

273
00:15:49,720 --> 00:15:53,160
Speaker 1: has not been used much in recent years. Inspect during

274
00:15:53,160 --> 00:15:56,640
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, the Department of Justice declined to prosecute

275
00:15:56,720 --> 00:15:59,960
Speaker 1: an Attorney General Eric Holder and former I R. S

276
00:16:00,040 --> 00:16:05,920
Speaker 1: official Lewis Larner following contempt referrals from the Republican led House. Similarly,

277
00:16:06,000 --> 00:16:10,000
Speaker 1: George W. Bush's Justice Department declined to charge Harriet Myers

278
00:16:10,120 --> 00:16:13,000
Speaker 1: after the former White House Council defied a subpoena in

279
00:16:13,080 --> 00:16:17,119
Speaker 1: a Democratic investigation into mass firings of United States attorneys.

280
00:16:17,520 --> 00:16:20,640
Speaker 1: In all, the House has brought five criminal contempt and

281
00:16:20,760 --> 00:16:24,920
Speaker 1: three civil contempt actions against Executive Branch officials since two

282
00:16:24,920 --> 00:16:28,040
Speaker 1: thousand and eight, and in each case the Executive Branch

283
00:16:28,240 --> 00:16:31,920
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice has refused to pursue those cases criminally.

284
00:16:32,280 --> 00:16:34,840
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Lass Show, Bob That's

285
00:16:34,880 --> 00:16:39,640
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner at McCarter and English.

286
00:16:40,160 --> 00:16:43,480
Speaker 1: Texas schools can once again set their own mask rules.

287
00:16:43,600 --> 00:16:46,560
Speaker 1: After a loss for Governor Greg Abbott in the first

288
00:16:46,600 --> 00:16:50,800
Speaker 1: federal court ruling over his anti mask crusade, Federal Judge

289
00:16:50,880 --> 00:16:55,520
Speaker 1: Lee Jaco permanently blocked Abbot's edict banning school mask mandates,

290
00:16:55,880 --> 00:16:58,880
Speaker 1: ruling it was a violation of disabled students right to

291
00:16:59,000 --> 00:17:03,520
Speaker 1: equally access educational facilities. Joining me is Tom Melsheimer, a

292
00:17:03,560 --> 00:17:07,199
Speaker 1: partner at Winston and Strong who represented the students at trial,

293
00:17:07,600 --> 00:17:10,520
Speaker 1: tell us. Your main argument to the judge, Well, we

294
00:17:10,600 --> 00:17:15,199
Speaker 1: represented a group of students with disabilities who were challenging

295
00:17:15,800 --> 00:17:21,760
Speaker 1: Governor Abbot's executive order banning mask mandates in public schools.

296
00:17:21,840 --> 00:17:25,439
Speaker 1: And the argument that we made successfully was that the

297
00:17:25,600 --> 00:17:30,120
Speaker 1: order restricting the use of mass mandates violated the Americans

298
00:17:30,240 --> 00:17:35,199
Speaker 1: with Disabilities Act and related statutes because it prevented school

299
00:17:35,240 --> 00:17:40,600
Speaker 1: districts from making reasonable accommodations to assist students with disabilities

300
00:17:40,720 --> 00:17:43,560
Speaker 1: get the full benefits of an in person education. So

301
00:17:43,760 --> 00:17:47,359
Speaker 1: it really starts with the premise that in person education

302
00:17:47,680 --> 00:17:50,560
Speaker 1: is what every student is entitled to, and that there

303
00:17:50,600 --> 00:17:53,800
Speaker 1: are strong benefits to in person education that cannot be

304
00:17:53,920 --> 00:17:58,560
Speaker 1: duplicated virtually or online, and that to say that the

305
00:17:58,720 --> 00:18:02,600
Speaker 1: disabled students, to extent they had hyped fears or risk

306
00:18:02,680 --> 00:18:05,360
Speaker 1: of COVID, to say that they could simply stay home

307
00:18:05,480 --> 00:18:08,399
Speaker 1: and take classes vertually, that's not an answer under the

308
00:18:08,480 --> 00:18:11,720
Speaker 1: law and under the Americans with Disabilities Acts. So the

309
00:18:11,960 --> 00:18:16,480
Speaker 1: whole premise was that kids with disabilities were entitled to

310
00:18:17,000 --> 00:18:21,880
Speaker 1: at least ask for mask requirements, and school districts were

311
00:18:22,040 --> 00:18:26,520
Speaker 1: entitled to consider them as a reasonable accommodation, and the

312
00:18:27,240 --> 00:18:33,080
Speaker 1: governor's order preventing that basically interfered with and violated the

313
00:18:33,320 --> 00:18:37,600
Speaker 1: civil rights of these of these disabled kids. The governor's ordered.

314
00:18:37,760 --> 00:18:42,080
Speaker 1: Was there an order specifically relating to schools. Yes, well,

315
00:18:42,160 --> 00:18:46,480
Speaker 1: actually the order barred all all kinds of mass mandates

316
00:18:46,480 --> 00:18:51,080
Speaker 1: and public settings, including school districts, and so we were

317
00:18:51,119 --> 00:18:55,080
Speaker 1: focused on the application of it in the public schools.

318
00:18:55,720 --> 00:18:59,720
Speaker 1: What was the argument that the state made. Well, the

319
00:19:00,080 --> 00:19:04,919
Speaker 1: legal argument they made was interesting, and so let me

320
00:19:05,000 --> 00:19:09,160
Speaker 1: say what they didn't say. They didn't challenge that masking

321
00:19:09,320 --> 00:19:12,879
Speaker 1: was effective at mitigating the risk of COVID. They didn't

322
00:19:12,960 --> 00:19:17,439
Speaker 1: challenge that the disabled kids were at higher risk of

323
00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:21,439
Speaker 1: side effects and bad consequences from COVID. They didn't challenge

324
00:19:21,440 --> 00:19:26,880
Speaker 1: any of that. They basically argued that our clients lacked

325
00:19:27,080 --> 00:19:32,879
Speaker 1: standing to sue to block enforcement of disorder. And this

326
00:19:32,920 --> 00:19:36,480
Speaker 1: is where it gets tricky because the state says this

327
00:19:36,800 --> 00:19:42,719
Speaker 1: order doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. It doesn't delegate enforcement

328
00:19:42,800 --> 00:19:45,760
Speaker 1: of the order to say, the Attorney General or to

329
00:19:46,800 --> 00:19:50,760
Speaker 1: the local district attorney or whatever. It doesn't say anything

330
00:19:50,800 --> 00:19:55,080
Speaker 1: about who enforces. It just says you can't have mass mandates,

331
00:19:55,280 --> 00:19:57,439
Speaker 1: and if you have a mass mandate, you're subject to

332
00:19:57,520 --> 00:20:01,600
Speaker 1: a ten thou a day five, Okay, And they said, well,

333
00:20:01,840 --> 00:20:06,240
Speaker 1: you can't sue in federal court the Attorney General because

334
00:20:06,280 --> 00:20:11,000
Speaker 1: he's not specifically authorized to enforce the statute. So you're

335
00:20:11,040 --> 00:20:15,920
Speaker 1: suing the wrong person essentially. Now our decision was, wait

336
00:20:15,920 --> 00:20:19,479
Speaker 1: a minute, the Attorney General is out there suing school

337
00:20:19,520 --> 00:20:22,800
Speaker 1: districts for violating g. A thirty eight. I mean, he's

338
00:20:22,840 --> 00:20:27,280
Speaker 1: sending threatening letters to school districts. He's filing lawsuits seeking

339
00:20:27,280 --> 00:20:31,760
Speaker 1: injunctive relief to prohibit the use of mass mandates. So

340
00:20:32,040 --> 00:20:35,320
Speaker 1: what is he doing if not enforcing it? This is

341
00:20:35,359 --> 00:20:37,800
Speaker 1: the you know, it looks like a duck and cracks

342
00:20:37,840 --> 00:20:39,920
Speaker 1: like a duck and walks like a duck. It's a duck.

343
00:20:40,200 --> 00:20:43,240
Speaker 1: But the state took the position that that doesn't matter

344
00:20:43,320 --> 00:20:46,520
Speaker 1: the fact that the Attorney journal was suing to enforce

345
00:20:46,640 --> 00:20:48,960
Speaker 1: the anti mass mandate, the fact that he was threatening

346
00:20:49,080 --> 00:20:53,040
Speaker 1: school districts. If he didn't have the authority in the

347
00:20:53,160 --> 00:20:57,240
Speaker 1: regulation or order itself, he couldn't be sued. And that

348
00:20:57,359 --> 00:21:00,720
Speaker 1: was really the gist of their argument. The Department of

349
00:21:00,800 --> 00:21:05,600
Speaker 1: Justice wigh in. They did. They weighed in on the

350
00:21:05,680 --> 00:21:10,159
Speaker 1: issue of violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In

351
00:21:10,280 --> 00:21:14,160
Speaker 1: the in the use of masking as a reasonable accommodation.

352
00:21:14,160 --> 00:21:18,080
Speaker 1: I mean, we look, we argued that masking was really

353
00:21:18,119 --> 00:21:22,119
Speaker 1: no different from ramps. That you imagine you had a

354
00:21:22,680 --> 00:21:27,000
Speaker 1: state order or regulation or executive order that said school

355
00:21:27,040 --> 00:21:30,239
Speaker 1: diserts can't have ramps. Now we would say, we'll wait

356
00:21:30,280 --> 00:21:33,240
Speaker 1: a minute, shouldn't the school districts have the ability to

357
00:21:33,600 --> 00:21:36,840
Speaker 1: use ramps if they had students in wheelchairs or students

358
00:21:36,920 --> 00:21:40,520
Speaker 1: that needed assistance in assessing the school or particular part

359
00:21:40,520 --> 00:21:43,880
Speaker 1: of the school. And that's really what the Justice Department

360
00:21:43,920 --> 00:21:46,199
Speaker 1: weighed in on as well. It's just saying, look, this

361
00:21:46,359 --> 00:21:49,760
Speaker 1: is a reasonable accommodation that the students ought to be

362
00:21:49,880 --> 00:21:53,000
Speaker 1: entitled to. The other thing that is important that I

363
00:21:53,040 --> 00:21:55,960
Speaker 1: don't think everyone fully appreciates. And the state tried to

364
00:21:56,240 --> 00:21:59,040
Speaker 1: argue that we were making this point when we were not,

365
00:21:59,240 --> 00:22:01,960
Speaker 1: which is the was not a case where we're arguing

366
00:22:02,119 --> 00:22:04,280
Speaker 1: that you had to have mass mandates. We were not

367
00:22:04,480 --> 00:22:07,600
Speaker 1: arguing for universal masking. We were not saying that the

368
00:22:07,680 --> 00:22:12,240
Speaker 1: only way to mitigate COVID for disabled students is masking.

369
00:22:12,359 --> 00:22:14,680
Speaker 1: We weren't saying that. We simply were saying that you

370
00:22:14,840 --> 00:22:19,520
Speaker 1: can't take that out of the arsenal of weapons against COVID.

371
00:22:19,560 --> 00:22:22,680
Speaker 1: And if you do that, it's akin to saying it

372
00:22:22,760 --> 00:22:25,679
Speaker 1: can't have ramps and schools, and it's taking out an

373
00:22:25,680 --> 00:22:29,160
Speaker 1: accommodation that ought to be available to the schools if

374
00:22:29,200 --> 00:22:32,359
Speaker 1: they choose to enact it. So tell us about the

375
00:22:32,440 --> 00:22:36,440
Speaker 1: judges ruling. Well, again, he took note to the fact

376
00:22:36,520 --> 00:22:40,040
Speaker 1: that the state did not question the risk of COVID

377
00:22:40,080 --> 00:22:43,320
Speaker 1: in the schools. The state did not question the risk

378
00:22:43,400 --> 00:22:47,040
Speaker 1: of COVID two children with disabilities, The state did not

379
00:22:47,280 --> 00:22:52,000
Speaker 1: challenge your question the efficacy of masking. And given those

380
00:22:52,240 --> 00:22:56,320
Speaker 1: in effect agreed to or stipulated facts, he concluded that

381
00:22:56,600 --> 00:23:01,119
Speaker 1: the executive order of Governor Abbott violated American's disability to

382
00:23:01,160 --> 00:23:05,200
Speaker 1: act because it prevented school districts from offering masking is

383
00:23:05,240 --> 00:23:08,560
Speaker 1: an accommodation. So he had joined the enforcement of it

384
00:23:08,600 --> 00:23:12,480
Speaker 1: by the Attorney General in his injunction prohibits the Attorney

385
00:23:12,520 --> 00:23:16,320
Speaker 1: General from threatening school districts or from suing school districts

386
00:23:16,600 --> 00:23:20,560
Speaker 1: to enforce G. Thirty eight, so called any mass mandate.

387
00:23:20,880 --> 00:23:23,640
Speaker 1: And that's really the seven substance of it. And he

388
00:23:23,720 --> 00:23:27,480
Speaker 1: was the first federal judge to rule on Abbot's mask

389
00:23:27,600 --> 00:23:32,480
Speaker 1: then well, so absolutely the first federal judge in Texas

390
00:23:32,600 --> 00:23:36,160
Speaker 1: to rule on anything with respect to the mass mandate.

391
00:23:36,240 --> 00:23:39,200
Speaker 1: But it's even broader than that. There were a number

392
00:23:39,200 --> 00:23:43,520
Speaker 1: of these challenges brought in federal courts throughout the country,

393
00:23:43,520 --> 00:23:47,880
Speaker 1: in Iowa, in Tennessee, in Florida. A number of these

394
00:23:47,920 --> 00:23:53,600
Speaker 1: cases where governors had issued similar orders purporting to ban

395
00:23:53,920 --> 00:23:56,960
Speaker 1: the use of mass mandates. What was unique about this

396
00:23:57,160 --> 00:24:00,760
Speaker 1: case is that it was a fy an old trial

397
00:24:00,920 --> 00:24:05,160
Speaker 1: on the merits. Those other cases were preliminary matters where

398
00:24:05,200 --> 00:24:08,520
Speaker 1: a group of disabled students or a disabled students rights

399
00:24:08,560 --> 00:24:13,280
Speaker 1: group were seeking preliminary relief or expedited or emergency relief.

400
00:24:13,720 --> 00:24:17,800
Speaker 1: Judge Jakole's ruling in Texas was a full trial on

401
00:24:17,840 --> 00:24:21,480
Speaker 1: the merits after discovery. So this was a final judgment.

402
00:24:21,560 --> 00:24:24,520
Speaker 1: This is an a temporary ruling pending a trial. We

403
00:24:24,560 --> 00:24:27,840
Speaker 1: conducted all the discovery, we did all the briefing on

404
00:24:27,960 --> 00:24:32,159
Speaker 1: the motion practice, and we had a full trial in October,

405
00:24:32,960 --> 00:24:36,520
Speaker 1: which he then ruled on with a complete record. So

406
00:24:36,600 --> 00:24:40,720
Speaker 1: this means that at this point, school districts in Texas

407
00:24:40,840 --> 00:24:45,280
Speaker 1: can require masks. They absolutely can require masks. And you know,

408
00:24:45,320 --> 00:24:47,560
Speaker 1: I want to make this point because a lot of

409
00:24:47,560 --> 00:24:50,359
Speaker 1: people think it's sort of a binary thing, mass or

410
00:24:50,359 --> 00:24:53,680
Speaker 1: no mass. But the truth is you can have masking

411
00:24:53,840 --> 00:24:57,760
Speaker 1: in a classroom, you can have masking requirements in a

412
00:24:57,800 --> 00:25:00,919
Speaker 1: wing of the school. You can have mask requirements in

413
00:25:00,960 --> 00:25:05,640
Speaker 1: a particular school in a broader district. And this injunction

414
00:25:05,720 --> 00:25:10,399
Speaker 1: that Judge Yakol entered allows school districts across Texas to

415
00:25:10,600 --> 00:25:13,320
Speaker 1: do whatever they think makes sense. And you may have

416
00:25:13,359 --> 00:25:16,959
Speaker 1: a small rural district with a handful of students and

417
00:25:17,040 --> 00:25:20,760
Speaker 1: no students with disabilities. Those school districts may elect to say,

418
00:25:20,800 --> 00:25:23,200
Speaker 1: you know, we don't need a mass mandate where we are.

419
00:25:23,680 --> 00:25:28,199
Speaker 1: You've got school districts in in Houston or Dallas or

420
00:25:28,240 --> 00:25:32,600
Speaker 1: elsewhere that are dealing with large numbers of disabled students

421
00:25:32,640 --> 00:25:37,320
Speaker 1: in their school population. They're going to elect potentially to say, yes,

422
00:25:37,440 --> 00:25:40,680
Speaker 1: we need mass mandates to protect our students. So it's

423
00:25:40,720 --> 00:25:43,320
Speaker 1: it's it's going to be sort of the freedom of

424
00:25:43,359 --> 00:25:50,040
Speaker 1: these districts to taylor the appropriate masking requirement to their

425
00:25:50,080 --> 00:25:54,679
Speaker 1: particular situation. The state is going to appeal. That appeal

426
00:25:54,720 --> 00:25:57,800
Speaker 1: will be to the Fifth Circuit, which is the most

427
00:25:57,840 --> 00:26:01,960
Speaker 1: conservative circuit in the tree. What are your chances on

428
00:26:02,000 --> 00:26:05,879
Speaker 1: appeal like our chances, in part for the reasons I

429
00:26:05,960 --> 00:26:09,920
Speaker 1: stated earlier that the state did not challenge really any

430
00:26:10,000 --> 00:26:13,440
Speaker 1: of our factual assertions about the risk of COVID to

431
00:26:13,520 --> 00:26:17,119
Speaker 1: disabled students, the efficacy of masking. That's not going to

432
00:26:17,240 --> 00:26:21,080
Speaker 1: be debated in the appellate court. The only issue that's

433
00:26:21,119 --> 00:26:23,400
Speaker 1: really going to be before the appellate Court is going

434
00:26:23,440 --> 00:26:26,399
Speaker 1: to be this issue of standing, and I think we've

435
00:26:26,440 --> 00:26:29,679
Speaker 1: got the better of the position on that. You know,

436
00:26:29,800 --> 00:26:34,280
Speaker 1: this is the same issue in a slightly different circumstances

437
00:26:35,200 --> 00:26:40,480
Speaker 1: that is before the Supreme Court in Texas Senate Bill eight,

438
00:26:41,240 --> 00:26:46,960
Speaker 1: the statute which allows private citizens to sue abortion providers

439
00:26:47,160 --> 00:26:51,040
Speaker 1: or those individuals assisting in an abortion after a certain

440
00:26:51,080 --> 00:26:55,240
Speaker 1: period of time of the pregnancy. That case involves a

441
00:26:55,359 --> 00:26:58,560
Speaker 1: private citizens suing in the State of Texas. View in

442
00:26:58,560 --> 00:27:01,560
Speaker 1: that case is, hey, we're not suing anyone, We're not

443
00:27:01,640 --> 00:27:05,200
Speaker 1: prohibiting anyone from doing anything. It's all private citizens. It's

444
00:27:05,240 --> 00:27:08,919
Speaker 1: a similar issue here that they're arguing. They're saying the

445
00:27:08,920 --> 00:27:13,439
Speaker 1: Attorney General is not really enforcing this order. I just

446
00:27:13,520 --> 00:27:16,879
Speaker 1: think the record that was developed in front of Judge Jacob,

447
00:27:17,240 --> 00:27:20,520
Speaker 1: the record of numerous lawsuits filed by the Attorney General,

448
00:27:20,600 --> 00:27:24,719
Speaker 1: the record of letters written threatening school districts, the record

449
00:27:24,760 --> 00:27:28,720
Speaker 1: of school districts that had mass mandates that then withdrew

450
00:27:28,760 --> 00:27:32,240
Speaker 1: their mass mandates upon getting a threatening letter or a

451
00:27:32,280 --> 00:27:35,440
Speaker 1: threatening phone call from the Attorney General's office, or after

452
00:27:35,480 --> 00:27:38,520
Speaker 1: they were sued. I think that record is very very

453
00:27:38,600 --> 00:27:42,840
Speaker 1: strong for finding that in this case, the planists do

454
00:27:42,960 --> 00:27:47,159
Speaker 1: have standing to bring this kind of challenge. So so

455
00:27:47,240 --> 00:27:50,000
Speaker 1: you think it will the issue is just going to

456
00:27:50,080 --> 00:27:53,280
Speaker 1: be what we a procedural issue. It's it's not going

457
00:27:53,320 --> 00:27:56,120
Speaker 1: to go to the heart of should there be masks

458
00:27:56,240 --> 00:27:59,959
Speaker 1: or not. I don't think it can go to that because,

459
00:28:00,080 --> 00:28:04,400
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, the state did not challenge the science.

460
00:28:04,800 --> 00:28:08,400
Speaker 1: They didn't have their own experts. They didn't offer, for example,

461
00:28:08,520 --> 00:28:12,240
Speaker 1: an expert that said that mass or deleterious in somewhere,

462
00:28:12,280 --> 00:28:14,520
Speaker 1: or they have a harmful impact, or that mass aren't

463
00:28:14,560 --> 00:28:18,240
Speaker 1: necessary or mass don't work. They didn't challenge that at all.

464
00:28:18,359 --> 00:28:21,080
Speaker 1: So that's why I mean, of course, you never know

465
00:28:21,760 --> 00:28:24,320
Speaker 1: what a reviewing court's going to do. There's a lot

466
00:28:24,359 --> 00:28:29,439
Speaker 1: of unpredictability in this. But this wasn't joined issue on

467
00:28:29,920 --> 00:28:33,439
Speaker 1: mask efficacy or the science. If the issue was only

468
00:28:33,560 --> 00:28:38,280
Speaker 1: joined with respect to these procedural issues, which are important issues.

469
00:28:38,320 --> 00:28:40,959
Speaker 1: I'm not minimizing them, but the state is not going

470
00:28:41,000 --> 00:28:42,280
Speaker 1: to be able to go in front of the Fifth

471
00:28:42,320 --> 00:28:45,960
Speaker 1: Circuit or any higher court and make arguments that they

472
00:28:46,000 --> 00:28:49,640
Speaker 1: didn't make in front of Judge Jacob about masking or

473
00:28:49,800 --> 00:28:52,400
Speaker 1: or the efficacy of masking or the need for masking.

474
00:28:53,160 --> 00:28:57,240
Speaker 1: Do school districts in Texas favor masks? I think it

475
00:28:57,360 --> 00:28:59,840
Speaker 1: depends on the school district. I think a lot of

476
00:29:00,200 --> 00:29:04,840
Speaker 1: urban school districts that have a large populations, very diverse

477
00:29:04,880 --> 00:29:11,040
Speaker 1: student populations, including significant populations of students with disabilities, they

478
00:29:11,040 --> 00:29:14,000
Speaker 1: absolutely do favor them. I think school districts that are

479
00:29:14,080 --> 00:29:17,160
Speaker 1: in rural communities that are smaller than are less diverse,

480
00:29:17,400 --> 00:29:19,680
Speaker 1: I think they typically don't. But it's not one size

481
00:29:19,720 --> 00:29:22,480
Speaker 1: fits all. There are some more rural districts that have

482
00:29:22,600 --> 00:29:26,520
Speaker 1: been seeking to have mass requirements. There are some larger

483
00:29:26,560 --> 00:29:29,120
Speaker 1: school districts that have decided they don't need them, and

484
00:29:29,160 --> 00:29:31,440
Speaker 1: that and that's really of all the things we did

485
00:29:31,440 --> 00:29:33,840
Speaker 1: in our argument in this case. I think, you know,

486
00:29:33,880 --> 00:29:37,360
Speaker 1: the the strategic decision that we made early on to

487
00:29:37,600 --> 00:29:41,480
Speaker 1: frame this as not pro mask any mask but to

488
00:29:41,600 --> 00:29:46,160
Speaker 1: frame it as giving these districts the ability to put

489
00:29:46,160 --> 00:29:48,680
Speaker 1: in ramps if they want to, but they don't have to.

490
00:29:49,120 --> 00:29:52,200
Speaker 1: If they've got kids with peanut allergies, they can decide

491
00:29:52,320 --> 00:29:55,520
Speaker 1: we're not going to have peanuts in the cafeteria. Giving

492
00:29:55,600 --> 00:29:59,120
Speaker 1: them the freedom and flexibility. I think that resonated with

493
00:29:59,160 --> 00:30:02,920
Speaker 1: the judge, and I think you will resonate more genuinely.

494
00:30:03,600 --> 00:30:07,000
Speaker 1: Thanks Tom. That's Tom mel Scheimer of Winston and Strown.

495
00:30:09,240 --> 00:30:12,200
Speaker 1: Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo could be forced to

496
00:30:12,240 --> 00:30:14,920
Speaker 1: return the more than five million dollars earned from his

497
00:30:15,000 --> 00:30:19,200
Speaker 1: pandemic book. The Joint Commission on Public Ethics, New York's

498
00:30:19,240 --> 00:30:23,800
Speaker 1: ethics watchdog, voted Tuesday to rescind its approval for Cuomo

499
00:30:23,840 --> 00:30:28,360
Speaker 1: to write American Crisis Leadership Lessons from the COVID nineteen

500
00:30:28,440 --> 00:30:31,520
Speaker 1: Pandemic in a twelve to one vote. The panel said

501
00:30:31,520 --> 00:30:34,960
Speaker 1: Cuomo violated the Commission's requirements that he write the book

502
00:30:35,000 --> 00:30:37,720
Speaker 1: on his own time and also took issue with the

503
00:30:37,720 --> 00:30:41,200
Speaker 1: book's content. But an attorney for Cuomo said the former

504
00:30:41,240 --> 00:30:44,200
Speaker 1: governor is ready to take the matter to court. Joining

505
00:30:44,200 --> 00:30:47,320
Speaker 1: me is Brad Moss, a partner in Mark Zade Brad

506
00:30:47,360 --> 00:30:50,160
Speaker 1: tell us why Cuomo needed permission to write the book,

507
00:30:51,000 --> 00:30:55,640
Speaker 1: so the former governor needed, given his position as public

508
00:30:55,720 --> 00:31:00,360
Speaker 1: official position at that time as the governor, um acquired

509
00:31:00,440 --> 00:31:04,040
Speaker 1: him to seek approval to ensure that he wasn't using

510
00:31:04,080 --> 00:31:08,000
Speaker 1: government resources and government time to write what would be

511
00:31:08,040 --> 00:31:14,240
Speaker 1: a private book for obviously private compensation. He secured the approval,

512
00:31:14,280 --> 00:31:17,920
Speaker 1: but they have rescinded it now based on the conclusion.

513
00:31:17,960 --> 00:31:20,600
Speaker 1: And some of this came out in the earlier media reporting.

514
00:31:21,200 --> 00:31:25,000
Speaker 1: Some of it came out in Leticia James's report into

515
00:31:25,040 --> 00:31:30,040
Speaker 1: the sexual misconduct allegations that he had sort of pressured

516
00:31:30,600 --> 00:31:34,040
Speaker 1: various officials to quote unquote volunteer their time and that

517
00:31:34,160 --> 00:31:36,520
Speaker 1: the premise of the book was not what he had

518
00:31:36,520 --> 00:31:39,720
Speaker 1: originally explained to the commission it would be, and it

519
00:31:39,920 --> 00:31:42,040
Speaker 1: raised doubt in the commission whether or not there had

520
00:31:42,120 --> 00:31:44,800
Speaker 1: been a lack of candor and how he got the

521
00:31:44,800 --> 00:31:47,200
Speaker 1: original approval, and that's why they took the action they did.

522
00:31:47,360 --> 00:31:49,840
Speaker 1: What do they want him to do? He's gotten about

523
00:31:49,880 --> 00:31:52,920
Speaker 1: three million dollars already. What are they expecting him to do?

524
00:31:53,480 --> 00:31:57,240
Speaker 1: Be can essentially he can refund the money, or he

525
00:31:57,360 --> 00:32:02,720
Speaker 1: can try to base the really sue them, claiming that

526
00:32:03,040 --> 00:32:07,080
Speaker 1: the essence of their conclusion was flawed and was not

527
00:32:07,520 --> 00:32:11,640
Speaker 1: sufficiently based on the existing legal factors. And what they're

528
00:32:11,640 --> 00:32:14,600
Speaker 1: gonna argue and you've seen some of that foreshadowed in

529
00:32:14,720 --> 00:32:18,600
Speaker 1: the attorney's initial responses is that this comes down to

530
00:32:18,960 --> 00:32:22,120
Speaker 1: at most of miscommunication, that there was paper work between

531
00:32:22,160 --> 00:32:26,800
Speaker 1: the supers, between the Commission and Clomo's lawyers, that the

532
00:32:26,920 --> 00:32:30,000
Speaker 1: understanding of what this would be was laid out there,

533
00:32:30,040 --> 00:32:31,640
Speaker 1: and if there was a miscommunication, it was on the

534
00:32:31,680 --> 00:32:35,200
Speaker 1: commission side, not Clomos died, and that in fact, there

535
00:32:35,280 --> 00:32:38,240
Speaker 1: was no pressure on people to quote unquote volunteer their time.

536
00:32:38,320 --> 00:32:42,080
Speaker 1: That's going to be their argument. My assumption, my expectation

537
00:32:42,720 --> 00:32:45,600
Speaker 1: is that this will be settled, He'll refund some portion

538
00:32:46,120 --> 00:32:48,360
Speaker 1: of the book advanced and the profit, and then it

539
00:32:48,400 --> 00:32:51,520
Speaker 1: will continue on. There's not a lot the Commission can

540
00:32:51,560 --> 00:32:54,600
Speaker 1: do beyond that. There's too much gray area and nuance

541
00:32:54,720 --> 00:32:58,960
Speaker 1: here for them to really push this too far. My expectations,

542
00:32:58,960 --> 00:33:01,680
Speaker 1: they just want to get their chunk of flesh, take

543
00:33:01,800 --> 00:33:04,200
Speaker 1: some money back, and make him refund it and go

544
00:33:04,280 --> 00:33:09,360
Speaker 1: on from there. So Cuomo's spokesman released documents outlining the

545
00:33:09,400 --> 00:33:13,560
Speaker 1: distinction between the use of public resources versus staff volunteering

546
00:33:13,560 --> 00:33:17,000
Speaker 1: their own time. He said, it's the height of hypocrisy

547
00:33:17,080 --> 00:33:20,640
Speaker 1: for Hocal, the Governor of New York, and the legislature's

548
00:33:20,680 --> 00:33:24,360
Speaker 1: appointees to take this position, given that these elected officials

549
00:33:24,440 --> 00:33:27,920
Speaker 1: routinely use their own staff for political and personal assistance

550
00:33:28,000 --> 00:33:30,760
Speaker 1: on their own time. Now that is true if they

551
00:33:30,800 --> 00:33:35,800
Speaker 1: start look into this. So if it came to court action,

552
00:33:36,560 --> 00:33:39,480
Speaker 1: these people might come up and say, well, yeah, we volunteered,

553
00:33:40,120 --> 00:33:42,920
Speaker 1: then I certainly could. And if those individuals want to

554
00:33:43,000 --> 00:33:47,320
Speaker 1: come forward with scorn testimony, whether in writing or verbal testimony,

555
00:33:47,360 --> 00:33:50,600
Speaker 1: and state yes, I completely volunteered. I had no way

556
00:33:50,720 --> 00:33:53,480
Speaker 1: was pressured to do so, this was of my own

557
00:33:53,520 --> 00:33:57,080
Speaker 1: free will, that would certainly undermine the commission's argument. There's

558
00:33:57,120 --> 00:33:59,280
Speaker 1: still be the separate issue of whether or not the

559
00:33:59,320 --> 00:34:03,040
Speaker 1: premise of the book that came out was consistent with

560
00:34:03,040 --> 00:34:05,440
Speaker 1: what was originally conveyed. Was the basis for approval. Was

561
00:34:05,440 --> 00:34:08,839
Speaker 1: supposed to be a follow up to book. It ended

562
00:34:08,880 --> 00:34:12,880
Speaker 1: up being something different, tied more to the pandemic. It's

563
00:34:12,880 --> 00:34:16,399
Speaker 1: something where he could have potentially gotten approval even with

564
00:34:16,480 --> 00:34:19,239
Speaker 1: that premise. But the Commission's argument is, you didn't tell us,

565
00:34:19,280 --> 00:34:21,760
Speaker 1: that's how it was going to be you mislead us,

566
00:34:21,800 --> 00:34:24,480
Speaker 1: and that was your misleading premise was what got you

567
00:34:24,520 --> 00:34:26,880
Speaker 1: approval in the first place. So there's a lot to

568
00:34:26,960 --> 00:34:29,400
Speaker 1: still be worked out here. I almost certainly expect that

569
00:34:29,480 --> 00:34:31,600
Speaker 1: will be a lawsuit that was this will be challenged

570
00:34:31,600 --> 00:34:37,000
Speaker 1: in court. There will be lots of depositions and documentation collected,

571
00:34:37,160 --> 00:34:39,440
Speaker 1: and this is why I expect it will settle at

572
00:34:39,520 --> 00:34:42,040
Speaker 1: some point for some amount of money. That will be

573
00:34:42,080 --> 00:34:46,000
Speaker 1: a confidential stone to say that the book was different

574
00:34:46,080 --> 00:34:47,960
Speaker 1: from what they thought it would be. I mean, they

575
00:34:47,960 --> 00:34:50,880
Speaker 1: would have given him permission to write another book. It

576
00:34:51,000 --> 00:34:54,080
Speaker 1: just seems as if they're grasping at straws there. You know,

577
00:34:54,120 --> 00:34:57,640
Speaker 1: he could say the book evolved as I was writing it. Yeah,

578
00:34:57,680 --> 00:34:59,839
Speaker 1: And it's you know, if if nothing else, this is

579
00:35:00,000 --> 00:35:02,040
Speaker 1: you know, sort of the commission doing what it wants

580
00:35:02,080 --> 00:35:06,359
Speaker 1: to hear because it can. He's obviously politically weakened. There's

581
00:35:06,400 --> 00:35:09,680
Speaker 1: a question about, you know, improper abuse of authority that's

582
00:35:09,680 --> 00:35:13,439
Speaker 1: already existing. They see an opportunity to kind of strike

583
00:35:13,480 --> 00:35:16,000
Speaker 1: while the iron is hot. It doesn't mean that their

584
00:35:16,239 --> 00:35:19,759
Speaker 1: conclusions are inappropriate or not based in good faith upon

585
00:35:19,880 --> 00:35:23,000
Speaker 1: the fact, but of course it does raise a concern

586
00:35:23,040 --> 00:35:26,520
Speaker 1: about whether or not this is their own abuse of discretion,

587
00:35:26,520 --> 00:35:29,279
Speaker 1: which I'm sure will be part of whatever the litigation

588
00:35:29,400 --> 00:35:32,600
Speaker 1: is that the former governor's lawyers will almost certainly bring,

589
00:35:32,640 --> 00:35:36,600
Speaker 1: as they'll try to point to essentially a politicization of

590
00:35:36,640 --> 00:35:39,920
Speaker 1: the process. They'll try to claim this is overreaching, an

591
00:35:39,960 --> 00:35:42,640
Speaker 1: abuse of the discretion of the Commission. Whether or not

592
00:35:42,680 --> 00:35:45,200
Speaker 1: that argument will go anywhere remains to be seen. I

593
00:35:45,200 --> 00:35:48,000
Speaker 1: don't expect it will, but it will play into sort

594
00:35:48,000 --> 00:35:51,680
Speaker 1: of the all encompassing political aspect of this when former

595
00:35:51,680 --> 00:35:55,120
Speaker 1: Governor Cuomo almost certainly tries to make a comeback. So

596
00:35:55,200 --> 00:35:57,640
Speaker 1: let me ask you this bread would the Commission bring

597
00:35:57,680 --> 00:36:00,600
Speaker 1: the lawsuit or would Cuomo bring the law suit? Because

598
00:36:00,680 --> 00:36:04,080
Speaker 1: the Commission doesn't have any power to do anything, do they,

599
00:36:04,400 --> 00:36:06,840
Speaker 1: So Governor Culomo would bring the lawsuit because if he

600
00:36:06,920 --> 00:36:09,560
Speaker 1: takes no action right now in light of this vote,

601
00:36:09,960 --> 00:36:11,840
Speaker 1: the Commission can move and I'm not sure if the

602
00:36:11,880 --> 00:36:15,840
Speaker 1: specific mechanism, whether they have referred to another entity, or

603
00:36:15,880 --> 00:36:18,520
Speaker 1: if they have the power themselves to implement it, but

604
00:36:18,640 --> 00:36:21,279
Speaker 1: they can move to basically impose like the equivalent of

605
00:36:21,280 --> 00:36:25,920
Speaker 1: a lead or monetary sanction against him personally for the

606
00:36:26,000 --> 00:36:28,879
Speaker 1: money he was able to collect based off this. Now

607
00:36:28,920 --> 00:36:31,480
Speaker 1: we're sending approval, so he will I think if it

608
00:36:31,600 --> 00:36:35,280
Speaker 1: is the equivalence of the government has gotten the imposed

609
00:36:35,320 --> 00:36:37,360
Speaker 1: it got getting ready to impose a lean on your house,

610
00:36:37,880 --> 00:36:40,880
Speaker 1: and you sue to challenge the authority of them to

611
00:36:40,920 --> 00:36:44,000
Speaker 1: do so or the basis for them doing so. That's

612
00:36:44,040 --> 00:36:46,960
Speaker 1: basically the context of which he'll will bring almost certainly

613
00:36:46,960 --> 00:36:50,000
Speaker 1: this lawsuit. And where would the money go? He does,

614
00:36:50,040 --> 00:36:53,359
Speaker 1: he return the money to the publishers, so they have

615
00:36:53,880 --> 00:36:57,520
Speaker 1: the unintended benefit. It would likely get donated, whether to

616
00:36:57,560 --> 00:37:01,359
Speaker 1: a charitable organization or quite possibly to some type of

617
00:37:01,520 --> 00:37:03,719
Speaker 1: fund that would go to the government. My assumptions that

618
00:37:03,800 --> 00:37:06,000
Speaker 1: can't go to New York State government in any form,

619
00:37:06,040 --> 00:37:08,400
Speaker 1: but it can almost certainly get refunded to a charitable

620
00:37:08,480 --> 00:37:11,240
Speaker 1: organization of some sort, which is probably what will happen anyway.

621
00:37:11,360 --> 00:37:14,120
Speaker 1: But none of this is written down. This is like

622
00:37:14,160 --> 00:37:16,359
Speaker 1: the first time this has happened. I can't say it's

623
00:37:16,360 --> 00:37:18,280
Speaker 1: the first time ever. A lot of this isn't always

624
00:37:18,280 --> 00:37:21,880
Speaker 1: public um. I'll say that it's not often that you

625
00:37:21,920 --> 00:37:25,440
Speaker 1: would see this, especially for someone of such prominence and

626
00:37:25,520 --> 00:37:28,600
Speaker 1: seniority as the governor of the State of New York. UM.

627
00:37:28,680 --> 00:37:31,080
Speaker 1: This speaks very much to the current time frame we're

628
00:37:31,120 --> 00:37:34,600
Speaker 1: in in terms of the willingness of these institutions to

629
00:37:34,680 --> 00:37:38,480
Speaker 1: buck the political um authorities, but also the very weakend

630
00:37:38,520 --> 00:37:41,440
Speaker 1: position that former Governor Cuomo is in given everything that's

631
00:37:41,480 --> 00:37:43,359
Speaker 1: going on in the last few months. Let's say there

632
00:37:43,400 --> 00:37:46,959
Speaker 1: is a lawsuit he doesn't given there's no settlement, who

633
00:37:46,960 --> 00:37:50,480
Speaker 1: has the better argument in the lawsuit. I think in

634
00:37:50,560 --> 00:37:53,759
Speaker 1: the end the Commission could win out if they take

635
00:37:53,800 --> 00:37:57,319
Speaker 1: it all the way. My assumptions expectations I've been saying

636
00:37:57,400 --> 00:38:01,279
Speaker 1: is I think they will ultimately settle it for some

637
00:38:01,440 --> 00:38:03,719
Speaker 1: you know, confidential amount and make him donate it to

638
00:38:03,840 --> 00:38:07,600
Speaker 1: charity and leave it at that, and allow the public

639
00:38:07,880 --> 00:38:09,920
Speaker 1: optics of it to be there and to have set

640
00:38:09,960 --> 00:38:14,240
Speaker 1: sort of the standard. Investigations into this book are still

641
00:38:14,320 --> 00:38:19,240
Speaker 1: going on by the State Assembly, the State Attorney General's office,

642
00:38:19,640 --> 00:38:23,239
Speaker 1: and the Brooklyn U. S Attorney's Office, so we could

643
00:38:23,280 --> 00:38:26,440
Speaker 1: hear more about this in the future. You absolutely could,

644
00:38:26,800 --> 00:38:29,520
Speaker 1: um whether from a civil context or from a criminal one,

645
00:38:29,560 --> 00:38:32,360
Speaker 1: depending on the full range of actions he took. And

646
00:38:32,400 --> 00:38:34,719
Speaker 1: I would certainly say the jury is still out in

647
00:38:34,840 --> 00:38:38,400
Speaker 1: terms of how much trouble Andrew Cuomo got himself into.

648
00:38:38,920 --> 00:38:42,800
Speaker 1: I don't anticipate much more going on beyond what's already occurred,

649
00:38:42,800 --> 00:38:45,480
Speaker 1: and it sounds like the criminal allegations that have been

650
00:38:45,520 --> 00:38:49,280
Speaker 1: made might not survive legal scrutiny, not a state batchel

651
00:38:49,320 --> 00:38:51,560
Speaker 1: scrutiny would. I have to wait and see how that

652
00:38:51,600 --> 00:38:54,799
Speaker 1: plays out. I'm sure Cuomo could write a book now

653
00:38:54,840 --> 00:38:57,440
Speaker 1: and get a lot more money than that, and he

654
00:38:57,520 --> 00:38:59,600
Speaker 1: almost certainly will, and it will be a sort of

655
00:38:59,640 --> 00:39:02,719
Speaker 1: a tour or two of redemption, trying to, you know,

656
00:39:03,239 --> 00:39:05,720
Speaker 1: make up for his sins and explain how he's understood

657
00:39:05,760 --> 00:39:08,200
Speaker 1: where he went wrong, which is a very standard move

658
00:39:08,239 --> 00:39:10,120
Speaker 1: for a politician to make, and there's no one better

659
00:39:10,160 --> 00:39:12,440
Speaker 1: at it than Andrew Cuomo. Thanks so much for being

660
00:39:12,440 --> 00:39:15,680
Speaker 1: on the show. Brad, that's Brad Moss, a partner, Mark said,

661
00:39:16,200 --> 00:39:18,479
Speaker 1: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

662
00:39:18,840 --> 00:39:21,319
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news, honor

663
00:39:21,360 --> 00:39:25,680
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

664
00:39:25,719 --> 00:39:30,719
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law.

665
00:39:31,120 --> 00:39:33,799
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg