WEBVTT - Behind Chief Justice Skipping Impeachment Trial

0:00:00.480 --> 0:00:05.720
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:07.480 --> 0:00:10.079
<v Speaker 1>The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment. The

0:00:10.160 --> 0:00:13.640
<v Speaker 1>chaplain will lead us in prayer. Chief Justice John Roberts

0:00:13.680 --> 0:00:17.639
<v Speaker 1>presided over the first impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump,

0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:21.319
<v Speaker 1>giving the event the gravitas it required. I think it

0:00:21.480 --> 0:00:25.640
<v Speaker 1>is appropriate at this point for me to admonish uh,

0:00:26.280 --> 0:00:31.480
<v Speaker 1>both the House Managers and the President's Council in equal terms, UH,

0:00:31.680 --> 0:00:35.960
<v Speaker 1>to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body.

0:00:36.360 --> 0:00:39.800
<v Speaker 1>But Roberts has decided not to preside over Trump's second

0:00:39.800 --> 0:00:43.640
<v Speaker 1>impeachment trial, giving an opening for Republicans to question the

0:00:43.720 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 1>legitimacy of the trial. Joining me is Bloomberg Supreme Court

0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:51.360
<v Speaker 1>reporter Greg Store Greg What does the Constitution say about

0:00:51.400 --> 0:00:56.400
<v Speaker 1>the Chief Justice presiding over impeachment trials? Well, it's the

0:00:56.480 --> 0:01:00.480
<v Speaker 1>Chief Justice have to preside over the impeachment trial of President.

0:01:00.720 --> 0:01:03.120
<v Speaker 1>What it doesn't say is whether he has to preside

0:01:03.160 --> 0:01:06.880
<v Speaker 1>over the impeachment trial of a former president, And most

0:01:07.040 --> 0:01:11.160
<v Speaker 1>constitutional scholars think that probably the answer is no. That

0:01:11.200 --> 0:01:14.000
<v Speaker 1>the document at least leaves the Chief Justice with the

0:01:14.000 --> 0:01:17.360
<v Speaker 1>option of not presiding. The reason the Chief Justice presides

0:01:17.480 --> 0:01:20.560
<v Speaker 1>over the trial of a sitting president is because if

0:01:20.560 --> 0:01:23.720
<v Speaker 1>the vice president presides, the vice president might have a

0:01:23.720 --> 0:01:26.039
<v Speaker 1>conflict of interest because they'd be presiding over a trial

0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:30.280
<v Speaker 1>that could lead to them becoming president. Did Democratic Majority

0:01:30.360 --> 0:01:34.200
<v Speaker 1>leader Chuck Schumer asked the Chief Justice to preside and

0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:37.320
<v Speaker 1>he refused, do we know what actually happened? That appears

0:01:37.360 --> 0:01:40.319
<v Speaker 1>to be what happened. John Roberts hasn't said anything. What

0:01:40.400 --> 0:01:43.640
<v Speaker 1>Chuck Schumer said the other night is that the Chief

0:01:43.720 --> 0:01:47.440
<v Speaker 1>Justice declined the opportunity to do that. So the presumption

0:01:47.520 --> 0:01:49.680
<v Speaker 1>is that he was asked to and chose not to.

0:01:49.880 --> 0:01:52.880
<v Speaker 1>From a democratic standpoint, there's certainly a lot of advantages

0:01:52.920 --> 0:01:55.840
<v Speaker 1>to having John Roberts presiding over the trial, So you

0:01:55.840 --> 0:01:57.920
<v Speaker 1>can see why they would have wanted him to and

0:01:57.960 --> 0:02:00.320
<v Speaker 1>would have tried to get him to, but apparent late

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:02.480
<v Speaker 1>he had no interest. Do you have any idea why

0:02:02.600 --> 0:02:07.480
<v Speaker 1>Roberts hasn't made a public statement about why he is

0:02:07.520 --> 0:02:11.040
<v Speaker 1>not presiding. It's pretty typical John Roberts. He doesn't make

0:02:11.120 --> 0:02:14.639
<v Speaker 1>very many public statements. Back during the first impeachment trial

0:02:14.840 --> 0:02:18.280
<v Speaker 1>a year ago, he completely left it up to Senate

0:02:18.360 --> 0:02:22.240
<v Speaker 1>leaders to make announcements about what was happening. You know,

0:02:22.280 --> 0:02:25.200
<v Speaker 1>it's certainly an opportunity where he could have said something,

0:02:25.280 --> 0:02:28.520
<v Speaker 1>could have explained his reasons for not coming over, could

0:02:28.560 --> 0:02:32.040
<v Speaker 1>have said I don't think the constitution requires me to.

0:02:32.639 --> 0:02:35.760
<v Speaker 1>But he chose not to, and we're all just left

0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:38.200
<v Speaker 1>to some degree to speculate about what his reasons were.

0:02:38.760 --> 0:02:42.600
<v Speaker 1>So at the last Trump impeachment trial, Roberts played a

0:02:42.639 --> 0:02:46.600
<v Speaker 1>sort of minimalist role, very much show. There was very

0:02:46.639 --> 0:02:49.360
<v Speaker 1>little he said that wasn't suggested to him by the

0:02:49.400 --> 0:02:53.560
<v Speaker 1>Senate parliamentarian. He kept the trains running one time. At

0:02:53.600 --> 0:02:57.200
<v Speaker 1>one point he admonished both sides to be a bit

0:02:57.200 --> 0:02:59.880
<v Speaker 1>more civil, and probably the most noteworthy thing that he

0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:02.720
<v Speaker 1>did was to say that he wouldn't break any high

0:03:02.840 --> 0:03:06.560
<v Speaker 1>votes and and that he referenced previous practice, which he

0:03:06.639 --> 0:03:09.480
<v Speaker 1>said supported the idea that it was up to the

0:03:09.520 --> 0:03:13.400
<v Speaker 1>Senate and that his entire role was to just preside

0:03:13.480 --> 0:03:16.160
<v Speaker 1>and keep the procedure moving, but not to make any

0:03:16.200 --> 0:03:21.200
<v Speaker 1>substantive decisions. Why has Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy had been

0:03:21.320 --> 0:03:25.560
<v Speaker 1>chosen to preside over Trump's second impeachment trial, but he

0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:28.760
<v Speaker 1>is the President pro tem of the Senate, taking over

0:03:28.800 --> 0:03:32.800
<v Speaker 1>for Chuck Rasley, who held that position while the Republicans

0:03:32.840 --> 0:03:36.400
<v Speaker 1>were in the majority. He was one of two options

0:03:36.440 --> 0:03:40.120
<v Speaker 1>for the Senate, the other being Vice President Kamalas Harris.

0:03:40.160 --> 0:03:43.280
<v Speaker 1>Not clear why they went with Lahy. It mind seem

0:03:43.440 --> 0:03:45.640
<v Speaker 1>slightly less political to have a member of the Senate

0:03:45.760 --> 0:03:48.440
<v Speaker 1>rather than the new Vice president who was on the

0:03:48.480 --> 0:03:52.120
<v Speaker 1>campaign that defeated Donald Trump. And the truth of the

0:03:52.160 --> 0:03:55.119
<v Speaker 1>matter is, if this trial is anything like the last one,

0:03:55.240 --> 0:03:58.360
<v Speaker 1>Senator Lake, he won't have a whole lot to do

0:03:58.880 --> 0:04:03.560
<v Speaker 1>other than ProForma keeping the proceeding moving along. He won't

0:04:03.600 --> 0:04:06.520
<v Speaker 1>to have any substantive decisions to make. It seems like

0:04:06.600 --> 0:04:10.640
<v Speaker 1>the perception of fairness would be better if it weren't

0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:16.000
<v Speaker 1>a Democratic senator who's spoken against Trump's actions presiding over

0:04:16.040 --> 0:04:19.200
<v Speaker 1>his impeachment trial. Yeah. I think that's a huge point.

0:04:19.360 --> 0:04:22.200
<v Speaker 1>You know, in the last two in Peaceman trials we've

0:04:22.200 --> 0:04:25.880
<v Speaker 1>had you have had a Chief Justice up there lending

0:04:25.920 --> 0:04:29.160
<v Speaker 1>a sense of gravity and making it seem as though

0:04:29.200 --> 0:04:32.480
<v Speaker 1>it were at least partially a judicial proceeding. You had

0:04:32.880 --> 0:04:36.280
<v Speaker 1>William Renklift for the impeachment of Bill Clinton and Roberts

0:04:36.360 --> 0:04:39.120
<v Speaker 1>last year for Trump's first impeachment. Instead, you're going to

0:04:39.240 --> 0:04:43.159
<v Speaker 1>have a senator and member of party opposing Donald Trump,

0:04:43.279 --> 0:04:46.160
<v Speaker 1>and it will convey a very different atmosphere. And it

0:04:46.240 --> 0:04:49.479
<v Speaker 1>certainly gives Republicans who don't want to talk about the

0:04:49.520 --> 0:04:52.719
<v Speaker 1>substance of the charge against Donald Trump, it gives them

0:04:52.800 --> 0:04:56.040
<v Speaker 1>another opening to talk about the process and the claim

0:04:56.160 --> 0:04:59.359
<v Speaker 1>is just a political exercise. Some Republicans seem to be

0:04:59.400 --> 0:05:04.240
<v Speaker 1>trying to been the Chief's absence into a decision by

0:05:04.240 --> 0:05:07.520
<v Speaker 1>the Chief that the impeachment of a president who's out

0:05:07.520 --> 0:05:11.280
<v Speaker 1>of office is unconstitutional. Yeah, I think that's a bit

0:05:11.279 --> 0:05:14.560
<v Speaker 1>of a leap. It is probably fair to surmise that

0:05:14.640 --> 0:05:17.960
<v Speaker 1>the Chief thinks that the Constitution doesn't require him to

0:05:18.120 --> 0:05:21.000
<v Speaker 1>be there for the trial. But that whole separate issue

0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:24.560
<v Speaker 1>of whether a former president can be put on trial,

0:05:24.960 --> 0:05:27.000
<v Speaker 1>it's hard to make that leap with just a step

0:05:27.040 --> 0:05:29.520
<v Speaker 1>by John Roberts. Again, it is a talking point for

0:05:29.560 --> 0:05:32.599
<v Speaker 1>a Republican It makes sense that they are trying to

0:05:32.680 --> 0:05:34.680
<v Speaker 1>cast it that way, and but that really is a

0:05:34.760 --> 0:05:39.080
<v Speaker 1>separate issue. Most constitutional scholars I've talked to say, what

0:05:39.320 --> 0:05:42.680
<v Speaker 1>history we have suggests that a former official can be

0:05:42.800 --> 0:05:46.839
<v Speaker 1>put on trial, and that that makes some sense because Otherwise,

0:05:47.000 --> 0:05:49.360
<v Speaker 1>a president nearing the ends of his or her term

0:05:49.520 --> 0:05:53.120
<v Speaker 1>would be able to act with impunity without facing any

0:05:53.160 --> 0:05:56.000
<v Speaker 1>sorts of consequence if that person could not be put

0:05:56.640 --> 0:05:59.640
<v Speaker 1>on trial. Let's turn to one of the Supreme courts

0:05:59.720 --> 0:06:04.640
<v Speaker 1>act sans this week. On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered

0:06:04.680 --> 0:06:08.599
<v Speaker 1>dismissal of suits over Trump. Find it just remind us

0:06:08.640 --> 0:06:12.040
<v Speaker 1>what those lawsuits are. Yeah, these these were lawsuits saying

0:06:12.040 --> 0:06:17.680
<v Speaker 1>he violated the Constitution's emoluments clause, which say that the

0:06:17.720 --> 0:06:20.560
<v Speaker 1>president tanken and he benefits from one of them says

0:06:20.640 --> 0:06:25.920
<v Speaker 1>from foreign governments, and the other says, uh, domestic benefits

0:06:26.240 --> 0:06:30.960
<v Speaker 1>beyond the salary that that he gets. And the focus

0:06:31.080 --> 0:06:34.440
<v Speaker 1>was on Trump on properties like the Trump International Hotel.

0:06:34.600 --> 0:06:39.279
<v Speaker 1>And these lawsuits claimed that, uh, Donald Trump was was

0:06:39.360 --> 0:06:43.480
<v Speaker 1>benefiting from being president because, say, foreign dignitaries would would

0:06:43.480 --> 0:06:46.640
<v Speaker 1>come stay as hotel to curry favor for the new administration.

0:06:46.800 --> 0:06:52.400
<v Speaker 1>And uh the allegation was that, uh that gave him

0:06:52.520 --> 0:06:55.440
<v Speaker 1>a competitive advantage over other hotels in the district of

0:06:55.480 --> 0:07:01.080
<v Speaker 1>Columbia and elsewhere. And uh, lower courts let those lawsuits

0:07:01.200 --> 0:07:04.920
<v Speaker 1>go forward against Donald Trump, saying, among other things, these

0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:07.599
<v Speaker 1>hotels in the state of Maryland at the District of

0:07:07.640 --> 0:07:12.480
<v Speaker 1>Columbia had standing to pursue them, and UM that might

0:07:12.560 --> 0:07:15.280
<v Speaker 1>have forest Donald Trump to turn over some of his

0:07:15.360 --> 0:07:18.720
<v Speaker 1>financial information. Well, now that Donald Trump is no longer

0:07:18.840 --> 0:07:23.520
<v Speaker 1>the president, both sides agree that these lawsuits were now

0:07:23.640 --> 0:07:27.680
<v Speaker 1>moot and should be dismissed. And the Supreme Court did that,

0:07:28.040 --> 0:07:31.920
<v Speaker 1>and along the way it told the lower it's set

0:07:31.960 --> 0:07:36.760
<v Speaker 1>aside federal appeals court rulings that let the lawsuits go forward. Uh,

0:07:36.880 --> 0:07:39.400
<v Speaker 1>so we've lost at least some of the president that

0:07:39.440 --> 0:07:42.640
<v Speaker 1>had built up around what those two emoluments caused me.

0:07:43.640 --> 0:07:47.920
<v Speaker 1>We have an acting solicitor general. Why not a point

0:07:47.960 --> 0:07:51.240
<v Speaker 1>a US solicitor general at this point? Why appointed acting

0:07:51.320 --> 0:07:55.160
<v Speaker 1>solicitor general? If you know, there will probably be an

0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:58.400
<v Speaker 1>appointment of a solicitor general and in relatively short order.

0:07:58.520 --> 0:08:00.600
<v Speaker 1>But there is an awful lot of work that needs

0:08:00.680 --> 0:08:04.400
<v Speaker 1>to be done right away in terms of uh potentially

0:08:04.400 --> 0:08:08.320
<v Speaker 1>shifting the government's position in a number of cases. There

0:08:08.360 --> 0:08:12.120
<v Speaker 1>are some pending Donald Trump appeals, a Trump administration appeals

0:08:12.120 --> 0:08:14.120
<v Speaker 1>that are at the Supreme Court. There are a couple

0:08:14.160 --> 0:08:16.080
<v Speaker 1>of cases that the court has already agreed to hear

0:08:16.280 --> 0:08:19.400
<v Speaker 1>arguments and UH, and there are a number of other

0:08:19.520 --> 0:08:22.000
<v Speaker 1>issues where the General's office will have to make some

0:08:22.040 --> 0:08:26.280
<v Speaker 1>big decisions going forward about how the what the government's

0:08:26.320 --> 0:08:29.000
<v Speaker 1>litigating strategy is going to be. So by putting in

0:08:29.040 --> 0:08:32.679
<v Speaker 1>an acting solist, their General Elizabeth Preloger, Uh, they now

0:08:32.800 --> 0:08:37.319
<v Speaker 1>have somebody who can start to make those decisions and

0:08:37.440 --> 0:08:42.200
<v Speaker 1>help appoint the government's legal team in the direction that

0:08:42.679 --> 0:08:46.120
<v Speaker 1>the president wants. And what happens supposed Let's just say,

0:08:46.160 --> 0:08:49.760
<v Speaker 1>on some of the immigration cases, the Biden administration is

0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:52.280
<v Speaker 1>a totally different view from the Trump administration and they

0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:56.400
<v Speaker 1>don't want to pursue a case anymore. Do they tell

0:08:56.440 --> 0:09:00.520
<v Speaker 1>that to the court? How does it work procedurally? It

0:09:00.640 --> 0:09:04.079
<v Speaker 1>depends a little bit um. If the government is pressing

0:09:04.120 --> 0:09:08.480
<v Speaker 1>an appeal, they always have the power to drop the appeal. Uh.

0:09:09.000 --> 0:09:12.360
<v Speaker 1>They also have the administration also has the ability to

0:09:12.480 --> 0:09:15.360
<v Speaker 1>change the underlying policy. So, for example, there are a

0:09:15.360 --> 0:09:17.440
<v Speaker 1>couple of arguments that the Supreme Court, who scheduled to

0:09:17.480 --> 0:09:21.320
<v Speaker 1>hear later on this term, having to do with money

0:09:21.320 --> 0:09:24.760
<v Speaker 1>being spent to build the border wall and Donald Trump's

0:09:25.000 --> 0:09:28.160
<v Speaker 1>policy that requires asylum applicants to stay in Mexico while

0:09:28.160 --> 0:09:31.200
<v Speaker 1>they're while they are applying. So bid the administration could

0:09:31.240 --> 0:09:35.600
<v Speaker 1>change the underlying policies there, and then those cases would

0:09:35.640 --> 0:09:40.760
<v Speaker 1>become either moot or close to moot, and the Supreme

0:09:40.800 --> 0:09:43.840
<v Speaker 1>Court probably would be inclined just to drop those arguments.

0:09:43.840 --> 0:09:46.400
<v Speaker 1>So it depends a little bit on exactly what's going

0:09:46.440 --> 0:09:48.920
<v Speaker 1>on and what the procedural status of the case is.

0:09:49.120 --> 0:09:51.280
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for being in the Bloomberg Laws Show, Greg,

0:09:51.640 --> 0:09:57.200
<v Speaker 1>That's Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. The conservative

0:09:57.280 --> 0:10:00.640
<v Speaker 1>legal movement has been unity behind shared goal of filling

0:10:00.640 --> 0:10:04.640
<v Speaker 1>the federal bench with like minded judges and advocating shared

0:10:04.679 --> 0:10:08.320
<v Speaker 1>principles grounded in originalism. But the movement appears to be

0:10:08.400 --> 0:10:12.000
<v Speaker 1>facing a reckoning post Trump. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal

0:10:12.000 --> 0:10:15.720
<v Speaker 1>reporter Madison Alder what has been the goal of the

0:10:15.760 --> 0:10:21.120
<v Speaker 1>conservative legal movement until now? So, the conservative legal movement

0:10:21.240 --> 0:10:26.920
<v Speaker 1>has really united over this idea of confirming federal judges

0:10:27.240 --> 0:10:34.040
<v Speaker 1>who are originalist textualists, who believes that the Constitution should

0:10:34.040 --> 0:10:37.000
<v Speaker 1>be interpreted as as the founders understood it, um, that

0:10:37.160 --> 0:10:42.200
<v Speaker 1>statute should be interpreted based on what it says, um.

0:10:42.240 --> 0:10:46.359
<v Speaker 1>And you know, it's something that has really united conservatives

0:10:46.360 --> 0:10:50.880
<v Speaker 1>across the spectrum. Uh, now that you know Trump is

0:10:51.240 --> 0:10:56.079
<v Speaker 1>out of office. Uh, conservatives don't have that to necessarily

0:10:56.120 --> 0:10:59.880
<v Speaker 1>unite them anymore, and it kind of becomes a question

0:11:00.120 --> 0:11:04.160
<v Speaker 1>of what comes next for their movements. Certainly, they were

0:11:04.280 --> 0:11:09.440
<v Speaker 1>very successful with President Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell getting

0:11:09.640 --> 0:11:14.319
<v Speaker 1>a lot of very conservative judges on the bench at

0:11:14.320 --> 0:11:19.520
<v Speaker 1>all levels. Now there's been a problem because some prominent

0:11:19.800 --> 0:11:25.240
<v Speaker 1>legal conservatives helped Trump try to overturn the election. Tell

0:11:25.320 --> 0:11:28.520
<v Speaker 1>us about some of some of what was done. So

0:11:29.160 --> 0:11:35.000
<v Speaker 1>on January six, Senators Josh Holly and Ted Cruz, who

0:11:35.440 --> 0:11:39.440
<v Speaker 1>are you know, they both had Supreme Court querkships. UM.

0:11:39.679 --> 0:11:43.640
<v Speaker 1>They went to Harvard and Yale respectively. Ted Cruise is

0:11:43.760 --> 0:11:46.680
<v Speaker 1>argued several times in front of the Supreme Court. They're

0:11:46.720 --> 0:11:51.000
<v Speaker 1>definitely conservative lawyers through and through. UM. They were part

0:11:51.080 --> 0:11:55.560
<v Speaker 1>of this movement to not certify the Electoral College results,

0:11:56.080 --> 0:11:59.240
<v Speaker 1>and that was something that really Josh Holly kind of

0:11:59.280 --> 0:12:02.680
<v Speaker 1>starked he was really leading this too. You know. That

0:12:03.120 --> 0:12:06.040
<v Speaker 1>definitely gave a lot of credence to the arguments that

0:12:06.080 --> 0:12:11.280
<v Speaker 1>there there was fraud um, which has been pretty these

0:12:11.280 --> 0:12:15.079
<v Speaker 1>claims have been pretty baseless. UM. And then outside on

0:12:15.200 --> 0:12:19.000
<v Speaker 1>January six, at the rally where President Trump spoke, and

0:12:19.240 --> 0:12:24.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani spoke, another conservative lawyer,

0:12:24.240 --> 0:12:29.000
<v Speaker 1>John Eastman, who was a former professor of Chapman University. Uh,

0:12:29.040 --> 0:12:31.480
<v Speaker 1>he said that there was fraud and the dead people

0:12:31.559 --> 0:12:35.440
<v Speaker 1>voted and really highlighted some of these criticisms too. And

0:12:35.520 --> 0:12:38.480
<v Speaker 1>we know what happened on January six. So the you

0:12:38.520 --> 0:12:41.960
<v Speaker 1>know mob strums the Capital and UM, A lot of

0:12:41.960 --> 0:12:45.960
<v Speaker 1>what they were up in arms about was was these

0:12:46.320 --> 0:12:50.360
<v Speaker 1>fraud claims, these these baseless fraud claims. So it has

0:12:50.440 --> 0:12:54.480
<v Speaker 1>some conservative lawyers pretty angry that a few of their

0:12:54.480 --> 0:12:58.720
<v Speaker 1>own were involved in wolstering these kinds of ideas that

0:12:58.960 --> 0:13:02.760
<v Speaker 1>incited people, and it has some of them even wanting

0:13:02.800 --> 0:13:07.320
<v Speaker 1>to to take some kind of action. Before January six,

0:13:07.480 --> 0:13:12.480
<v Speaker 1>a lot of conservative lawyers tried to help President Trump

0:13:13.480 --> 0:13:19.120
<v Speaker 1>overturned the election results by presenting evidence, or a lack

0:13:19.160 --> 0:13:22.680
<v Speaker 1>of credible evidence, that there was fraud. Were some people

0:13:22.679 --> 0:13:25.640
<v Speaker 1>in the federal society upset about that too? Or did

0:13:25.720 --> 0:13:30.240
<v Speaker 1>it take until January six for them to be concerned? Well,

0:13:30.920 --> 0:13:33.360
<v Speaker 1>a lot of the lawyers who are involved in the

0:13:33.480 --> 0:13:39.000
<v Speaker 1>election lawsuits were we're not really leading lights of the

0:13:39.040 --> 0:13:43.120
<v Speaker 1>conservative legal movement. UM you know, Rudy Giuliani, for example,

0:13:43.280 --> 0:13:46.560
<v Speaker 1>is not really seen as being a leading light of

0:13:46.679 --> 0:13:51.640
<v Speaker 1>the conservative uh leal movement, and so there was there

0:13:51.679 --> 0:13:54.640
<v Speaker 1>was already a bit of a distance there, um between

0:13:55.160 --> 0:13:59.040
<v Speaker 1>an organization like the Federal Society and prominent concerned lawyers

0:13:59.040 --> 0:14:02.480
<v Speaker 1>and those who were involved in in these lawsuits. Um.

0:14:02.679 --> 0:14:05.040
<v Speaker 1>But you know, there were a lot of Federal Study

0:14:05.040 --> 0:14:08.440
<v Speaker 1>members who were speaking out internally and on Twitter against

0:14:08.840 --> 0:14:11.440
<v Speaker 1>these kinds of of claims. A few of the people

0:14:11.480 --> 0:14:14.480
<v Speaker 1>I spoke to said that they would have welcomed uh,

0:14:14.520 --> 0:14:17.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, lawsuit of challenge had there been frauds uh

0:14:17.920 --> 0:14:20.720
<v Speaker 1>and had the courts not start these claims down. But

0:14:21.200 --> 0:14:23.200
<v Speaker 1>at the end of the day, they did strike them

0:14:23.240 --> 0:14:27.240
<v Speaker 1>down and there wasn't frauds um. So it really didn't

0:14:27.240 --> 0:14:30.360
<v Speaker 1>mine up with what conservative lawyers stand for, which is

0:14:30.440 --> 0:14:34.840
<v Speaker 1>the rule of law. Also, there were eighteen Republican state

0:14:34.880 --> 0:14:39.960
<v Speaker 1>attorneys general who supported one of the lawsuits to overturn

0:14:40.000 --> 0:14:44.920
<v Speaker 1>the election results, right, And I took to one of

0:14:44.960 --> 0:14:48.840
<v Speaker 1>the attorneys general who was not part of that group, Um,

0:14:49.000 --> 0:14:52.640
<v Speaker 1>David Goes, who is the Attorney General of Ohio. And

0:14:52.920 --> 0:14:56.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, the way that he saw the events of

0:14:56.480 --> 0:14:59.120
<v Speaker 1>January six and the involvement by by some of these

0:14:59.120 --> 0:15:03.000
<v Speaker 1>conservative attorney these was you know that they've kind of

0:15:03.040 --> 0:15:08.280
<v Speaker 1>forfeited credibility when they're throwing their support behind these claims,

0:15:08.440 --> 0:15:13.720
<v Speaker 1>and um, it's definitely showing a split between you know,

0:15:13.920 --> 0:15:18.160
<v Speaker 1>different types of conservative attorneys, those who you know, don't

0:15:18.240 --> 0:15:21.960
<v Speaker 1>believe in in the way that some some people conducted

0:15:22.000 --> 0:15:24.880
<v Speaker 1>themselves and uh, you know, don't believe in in these

0:15:24.880 --> 0:15:28.240
<v Speaker 1>basis claims, and those that are willing to support them.

0:15:28.720 --> 0:15:33.440
<v Speaker 1>Liberals often see the conservative movement as one big movement,

0:15:34.200 --> 0:15:37.760
<v Speaker 1>but have there been factions within the conservative movement? So

0:15:37.960 --> 0:15:43.320
<v Speaker 1>I spoke to professor Steven Tullis, who has written about conservatives.

0:15:43.320 --> 0:15:45.560
<v Speaker 1>He wrote a book about those who were Never Trump.

0:15:45.640 --> 0:15:48.240
<v Speaker 1>He also wrote a book about the conservative legal movement.

0:15:48.800 --> 0:15:51.600
<v Speaker 1>And he said that that is a tendency to kind

0:15:51.600 --> 0:15:54.800
<v Speaker 1>of see the conservative movement from the left is being unified,

0:15:54.840 --> 0:15:57.960
<v Speaker 1>but they've always had a variety of different views and

0:15:58.520 --> 0:16:01.840
<v Speaker 1>that perhaps the and you know, the Electron fraud claims,

0:16:01.880 --> 0:16:05.520
<v Speaker 1>the events of January six have kind of highlighted that

0:16:05.720 --> 0:16:07.880
<v Speaker 1>in a way that that hasn't really been seen before.

0:16:07.920 --> 0:16:10.360
<v Speaker 1>That there is kind of a fracturing that he also

0:16:10.440 --> 0:16:13.880
<v Speaker 1>sees happening on the left as well. Explain for those

0:16:13.920 --> 0:16:18.160
<v Speaker 1>who don't know, explain what the Federalist Society is. So

0:16:18.280 --> 0:16:22.720
<v Speaker 1>the Federalist Society, uh, you know, it's it describes itself

0:16:22.760 --> 0:16:25.200
<v Speaker 1>as kind of a networking group but kind of a

0:16:25.240 --> 0:16:29.840
<v Speaker 1>debate club of sorts for conservative and libertarian lawyers. They

0:16:29.880 --> 0:16:34.000
<v Speaker 1>hold events, they hold an annual events, they do panels.

0:16:34.000 --> 0:16:37.480
<v Speaker 1>Really the backbone of the organization is, uh, their groups

0:16:37.520 --> 0:16:42.480
<v Speaker 1>on college campuses and you know, on law schools helps

0:16:42.920 --> 0:16:47.560
<v Speaker 1>get conservative thinking young lawyers together to to hear from

0:16:48.000 --> 0:16:52.280
<v Speaker 1>different speakers. And one of their policies is they don't

0:16:52.360 --> 0:16:56.440
<v Speaker 1>comment on political issues. Um, you know, it's on their website.

0:16:56.680 --> 0:16:59.880
<v Speaker 1>They've graiterated that they don't comment on political issues. So

0:17:00.000 --> 0:17:03.320
<v Speaker 1>at is what happened in this case as well. They're

0:17:03.360 --> 0:17:07.200
<v Speaker 1>they're still not commenting on this, which you know, some

0:17:07.240 --> 0:17:09.160
<v Speaker 1>of the lawyers that I spoke to who are part

0:17:09.160 --> 0:17:12.159
<v Speaker 1>of the Federalist Society respect and say that, you know,

0:17:12.200 --> 0:17:15.439
<v Speaker 1>they they maybe shouldn't comment on this, and they like

0:17:15.560 --> 0:17:17.760
<v Speaker 1>that they do that. The others say, maybe this is

0:17:17.880 --> 0:17:22.159
<v Speaker 1>the scenario where they need to weigh in and say something,

0:17:22.800 --> 0:17:26.680
<v Speaker 1>especially about John Eastman, who is a member of one

0:17:26.760 --> 0:17:30.280
<v Speaker 1>of their groups that plans some of these events and

0:17:30.280 --> 0:17:33.480
<v Speaker 1>and gets the speakers together. You talk to the co

0:17:33.680 --> 0:17:38.040
<v Speaker 1>founder of the Federalist Society, what was his reaction? So

0:17:38.359 --> 0:17:43.000
<v Speaker 1>his reaction, Uh, Stephen cal Brucie is a professor now

0:17:43.160 --> 0:17:46.360
<v Speaker 1>is a co founder of the Federal Society, and he

0:17:46.680 --> 0:17:50.479
<v Speaker 1>has both supported Trump in in op eds and and

0:17:50.560 --> 0:17:55.159
<v Speaker 1>he's you know, recently not supported Trump in offense. So

0:17:55.240 --> 0:17:57.040
<v Speaker 1>he's kind of gone back and forth on this over

0:17:57.080 --> 0:18:01.479
<v Speaker 1>the years. And uh, you know, he basically he did

0:18:01.600 --> 0:18:03.879
<v Speaker 1>not agree with any of these election fraud claims. He

0:18:03.960 --> 0:18:08.520
<v Speaker 1>said that conservatives have aired and not accepting the results

0:18:08.560 --> 0:18:13.119
<v Speaker 1>of of the election, and that support for from some

0:18:13.160 --> 0:18:17.600
<v Speaker 1>conservative lawyers of this is kind of detrimental. So the

0:18:17.600 --> 0:18:23.640
<v Speaker 1>Federalist Society helped Trump in forming the list of Supreme

0:18:23.680 --> 0:18:28.920
<v Speaker 1>Court justices and judges that he nominated. They were very

0:18:29.000 --> 0:18:32.399
<v Speaker 1>active in that role, or at least Leonard Leo was.

0:18:33.280 --> 0:18:37.120
<v Speaker 1>Do any of them feel like, even though Trump helped

0:18:37.160 --> 0:18:42.080
<v Speaker 1>them accomplish this incredible goal of transforming a large part

0:18:42.080 --> 0:18:46.320
<v Speaker 1>of the judiciary to conservative judges, do any of them

0:18:46.359 --> 0:18:50.280
<v Speaker 1>feel that their movement was corrupted by Trump? Something that

0:18:50.560 --> 0:18:53.600
<v Speaker 1>was underscored for me by a few different people I

0:18:53.640 --> 0:18:57.040
<v Speaker 1>spoke to, was that they believe that the way that

0:18:57.440 --> 0:19:00.600
<v Speaker 1>Trump's own appointees treated these election fraud nimes, which was

0:19:00.640 --> 0:19:03.760
<v Speaker 1>by and large throwing them out, you know, calling them

0:19:03.760 --> 0:19:07.760
<v Speaker 1>for what they were, rejecting them on the merits. They

0:19:08.200 --> 0:19:12.080
<v Speaker 1>threw them out because they were baseless. And you know,

0:19:12.200 --> 0:19:15.520
<v Speaker 1>at least one conservative lawyer of libertarian lawyer Jonathan Adler's

0:19:15.560 --> 0:19:18.920
<v Speaker 1>for Factor case Western told me that he thinks that

0:19:19.440 --> 0:19:24.160
<v Speaker 1>is evidence that the movement wasn't corrupted by Trump. That uh,

0:19:24.240 --> 0:19:26.640
<v Speaker 1>you know, these conservative judges, many of whom were part

0:19:26.640 --> 0:19:29.000
<v Speaker 1>of the Federalist Society, when it came down to it

0:19:29.480 --> 0:19:33.320
<v Speaker 1>didn't side with the president, and they said what the

0:19:33.400 --> 0:19:37.920
<v Speaker 1>law was and and it wasn't that there was election frauds.

0:19:37.960 --> 0:19:41.120
<v Speaker 1>What are the paths for the Federal Society going forward?

0:19:42.480 --> 0:19:45.879
<v Speaker 1>So I spoke to a few Federalist Society members for

0:19:45.960 --> 0:19:50.680
<v Speaker 1>the story, and they described a path forward that involves

0:19:51.160 --> 0:19:54.360
<v Speaker 1>holding some of their own accountables, maybe holding Eastman accountables.

0:19:54.400 --> 0:19:56.600
<v Speaker 1>And there's you know, a movement. We had a few

0:19:57.000 --> 0:20:01.640
<v Speaker 1>background sources confirmed that there's a movement to unseat him

0:20:01.720 --> 0:20:04.800
<v Speaker 1>from this position. On one of the practice groups that

0:20:05.720 --> 0:20:09.800
<v Speaker 1>organizes some of these meetings. You know, another conservative lawyer

0:20:09.920 --> 0:20:13.600
<v Speaker 1>told us that they had sent a letter to leadership

0:20:14.359 --> 0:20:17.640
<v Speaker 1>asking that he be removed from the approved speakers list.

0:20:18.400 --> 0:20:21.440
<v Speaker 1>There was another letter asking that he be removed from

0:20:21.560 --> 0:20:23.399
<v Speaker 1>his practist group role as well. So there is a

0:20:23.440 --> 0:20:28.240
<v Speaker 1>movement internally to take action, which is pretty significant for

0:20:28.400 --> 0:20:32.680
<v Speaker 1>conservatives who who kind of reject the left cancel culture

0:20:33.280 --> 0:20:35.760
<v Speaker 1>um and a few of them have have been careful

0:20:35.800 --> 0:20:38.800
<v Speaker 1>to note that they don't agree with cancel culture, but

0:20:38.880 --> 0:20:40.520
<v Speaker 1>they would like to see them take some kind of

0:20:40.560 --> 0:20:43.520
<v Speaker 1>action on Eastman. And then you know, other lawyers described

0:20:43.760 --> 0:20:48.040
<v Speaker 1>maybe a path where speakers who are political, like Hollie

0:20:48.080 --> 0:20:49.720
<v Speaker 1>or Crews, if they're ever to speak at events in

0:20:49.760 --> 0:20:52.800
<v Speaker 1>the future, wouldn't be highlighted, or maybe the organization wouldn't

0:20:52.920 --> 0:20:56.239
<v Speaker 1>you know, wouldn't have them comes as speakers, and you know,

0:20:56.359 --> 0:21:00.879
<v Speaker 1>basically severing those ties between since of bit of lawyers

0:21:00.960 --> 0:21:05.119
<v Speaker 1>and politicians with a legal background. Um. So those are

0:21:05.160 --> 0:21:07.440
<v Speaker 1>just a few of the things that that people talked about,

0:21:07.440 --> 0:21:09.600
<v Speaker 1>But of course these are the opinions of just you know,

0:21:09.880 --> 0:21:13.480
<v Speaker 1>a few conservative lawyers, and it really is going to

0:21:13.600 --> 0:21:16.320
<v Speaker 1>be up to the Federal Society on on where this

0:21:16.520 --> 0:21:19.600
<v Speaker 1>ends up going That was going to be my next question,

0:21:19.640 --> 0:21:23.920
<v Speaker 1>because I wondered how much of the Federal Society feels

0:21:24.040 --> 0:21:26.760
<v Speaker 1>the way you've been describing some of these conservatives feel,

0:21:26.800 --> 0:21:29.639
<v Speaker 1>and how much of the Federal Society thinks, you know,

0:21:29.880 --> 0:21:32.040
<v Speaker 1>everything's fine, let's just go ahead the way we've been

0:21:32.040 --> 0:21:35.520
<v Speaker 1>going any feel for that, Well, that's one thing that's

0:21:35.520 --> 0:21:37.000
<v Speaker 1>one of the reasons why we wanted to look at

0:21:37.040 --> 0:21:41.040
<v Speaker 1>this is because the Federal Society doesn't take political opinions

0:21:41.040 --> 0:21:43.920
<v Speaker 1>on things. So in a way, it's an organization made

0:21:44.000 --> 0:21:46.560
<v Speaker 1>up a lot of its numbers, and so if it's

0:21:46.560 --> 0:21:49.520
<v Speaker 1>going to delegate that to its members, its members opinions

0:21:49.520 --> 0:21:53.119
<v Speaker 1>and things like this really matter. And you know, at

0:21:53.160 --> 0:21:56.760
<v Speaker 1>least with the people that we spoke to um, there

0:21:56.800 --> 0:21:58.840
<v Speaker 1>are a lot of people that feel like something does

0:21:58.960 --> 0:22:02.680
<v Speaker 1>need to happen here, or that you know, maybe there

0:22:02.720 --> 0:22:05.840
<v Speaker 1>needs to be a different way to handle these types

0:22:05.840 --> 0:22:10.200
<v Speaker 1>of speakers and and how the organization moves forward after this.

0:22:10.359 --> 0:22:13.480
<v Speaker 1>But I think ultimately it's it's a little hard to

0:22:13.480 --> 0:22:16.639
<v Speaker 1>tell exactly what's going to happen in an organization like this,

0:22:16.800 --> 0:22:22.359
<v Speaker 1>because when you're a debate club and you are so

0:22:23.080 --> 0:22:28.200
<v Speaker 1>focused on having a diverse array of perspective having decisions

0:22:28.320 --> 0:22:31.280
<v Speaker 1>ultimately get made. It's not really one of the elements

0:22:31.359 --> 0:22:34.480
<v Speaker 1>of debate. So it will be interesting to see if

0:22:34.880 --> 0:22:38.080
<v Speaker 1>the federal society ultimately decides to pick in your direction

0:22:38.200 --> 0:22:40.560
<v Speaker 1>or if they hold to what they've done in the past,

0:22:40.640 --> 0:22:44.560
<v Speaker 1>which is not saying anything to to foster the debate culture.

0:22:44.920 --> 0:22:48.280
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for being the Bloomberg Law Show. Madison. That's Medisine Alder,

0:22:48.359 --> 0:22:51.440
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Legal Reporter. And that's it for the edition of

0:22:51.480 --> 0:22:54.720
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Lawn Podcast. I'm June Grasso. Thanks so much

0:22:54.760 --> 0:22:57.520
<v Speaker 1>for listening, and remember you can always get the latest

0:22:57.560 --> 0:23:00.600
<v Speaker 1>legal news on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can find

0:23:00.640 --> 0:23:04.080
<v Speaker 1>them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your

0:23:04.160 --> 0:23:14.480
<v Speaker 1>favorite podcasts. You're listening to Bloomberg m