1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,840
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. Well,

2
00:00:05,840 --> 00:00:10,559
Speaker 1: your argument next. In Case nineteen sixty five, Donald Trump

3
00:00:10,680 --> 00:00:15,240
Speaker 1: versus Cyrus fans historic arguments at the Supreme Court on

4
00:00:15,280 --> 00:00:20,040
Speaker 1: Tuesday a pair of constitutional classes that could insulate presidents

5
00:00:20,040 --> 00:00:24,000
Speaker 1: from investigations while in office and add an explosive new

6
00:00:24,079 --> 00:00:27,680
Speaker 1: element to the election campaign. In the more than three

7
00:00:27,720 --> 00:00:31,600
Speaker 1: hours of arguments, the Jostice has expressed mixed reactions to

8
00:00:31,680 --> 00:00:35,200
Speaker 1: President Trump's efforts to stop his banks and accountants from

9
00:00:35,240 --> 00:00:38,840
Speaker 1: complying with subpoenas from House Democrats and a New York prosecutor.

10
00:00:39,159 --> 00:00:42,559
Speaker 1: The liberal Jostice is often asked about President Here are

11
00:00:42,640 --> 00:00:46,040
Speaker 1: Justices Stephen Bryer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonya So to

12
00:00:46,120 --> 00:00:53,240
Speaker 1: mayor and other cases Watergate, particularly, the Court gave contested

13
00:00:53,360 --> 00:00:57,880
Speaker 1: material involving the very workings of the presidential office to

14
00:00:58,320 --> 00:01:03,640
Speaker 1: the prosecutor. So, how do you distinguish, say, white Water,

15
00:01:04,240 --> 00:01:11,120
Speaker 1: when President Clinton's personal records was subpoened from his accountant

16
00:01:11,680 --> 00:01:17,400
Speaker 1: or even Hillary Clinton's law firm, billing Wick, was subpoenaed

17
00:01:19,200 --> 00:01:21,880
Speaker 1: and we're not asking him to produce it, and some

18
00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:24,880
Speaker 1: of the subpoenas that Congress through history as far back

19
00:01:25,400 --> 00:01:30,200
Speaker 1: as sevento have asked for personal papers of the president

20
00:01:30,319 --> 00:01:34,199
Speaker 1: whild being president, while the conservative justice is often asked

21
00:01:34,200 --> 00:01:38,200
Speaker 1: about harassment. Here are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices

22
00:01:38,280 --> 00:01:43,200
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. And we're concerned, as you've recognized,

23
00:01:43,240 --> 00:01:47,520
Speaker 1: with the potential for harassment. Uh. And how does that

24
00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:49,840
Speaker 1: play in? I mean, at what point does the number

25
00:01:49,880 --> 00:01:54,600
Speaker 1: of committees investigating the president's personal paper has become a

26
00:01:54,640 --> 00:02:00,920
Speaker 1: factor in an analysis of the issue of harassment. You know,

27
00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:04,400
Speaker 1: at some point there's a straw that breaks the camel's back.

28
00:02:05,240 --> 00:02:08,480
Speaker 1: And it seems as though you're saying that we should

29
00:02:08,560 --> 00:02:12,120
Speaker 1: look at these in the isolation as opposed to an

30
00:02:12,200 --> 00:02:16,960
Speaker 1: aggreg in the aggregate. Your final answer was courts can

31
00:02:17,040 --> 00:02:20,919
Speaker 1: take care of that. But that's the issue here, whether

32
00:02:21,040 --> 00:02:24,720
Speaker 1: something should be done to prevent the use of these

33
00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:27,720
Speaker 1: subpoenas for the harassment of a president. But the Chief

34
00:02:27,760 --> 00:02:30,560
Speaker 1: who is likely the pivotal vote in both cases, sent

35
00:02:30,720 --> 00:02:33,560
Speaker 1: Nick signals well, in other words, it's okay for the

36
00:02:33,639 --> 00:02:37,600
Speaker 1: grand jury to investigate, except it can't use the traditional

37
00:02:38,200 --> 00:02:42,080
Speaker 1: and most effective device that grand juries have typically used,

38
00:02:42,120 --> 00:02:45,079
Speaker 1: which is the subpoena, and many of the justices did

39
00:02:45,120 --> 00:02:47,800
Speaker 1: seem to suggest they favored limits on the power to

40
00:02:47,840 --> 00:02:52,400
Speaker 1: demand the president's personal information. Here's Justice Brier, the job

41
00:02:52,440 --> 00:02:55,079
Speaker 1: of the House and Senate, in part as the president

42
00:02:55,200 --> 00:02:59,040
Speaker 1: is politics. That doesn't bother me, But the Clinton v.

43
00:02:59,240 --> 00:03:02,760
Speaker 1: Jones and form nation does bother me. And the fact

44
00:03:02,840 --> 00:03:05,320
Speaker 1: that what I hold today will also apply to a

45
00:03:05,440 --> 00:03:09,440
Speaker 1: future senator, to McCarthy asking a future Franklin Roosevelt er

46
00:03:09,480 --> 00:03:13,799
Speaker 1: Harry Truman exactly the same questions that bothers me to

47
00:03:13,919 --> 00:03:17,519
Speaker 1: join me. As former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor

48
00:03:17,560 --> 00:03:22,080
Speaker 1: at Cordosa Law School, these were two cases about subpoenas

49
00:03:22,120 --> 00:03:28,280
Speaker 1: for President Trump's financial records, but different underlying issues explain

50
00:03:28,360 --> 00:03:31,799
Speaker 1: the difference in the issues in the two cases. So,

51
00:03:31,840 --> 00:03:34,440
Speaker 1: the first case that was argued was about the authority

52
00:03:34,520 --> 00:03:38,800
Speaker 1: of Congress to issue subpoenas for papers that pertained to

53
00:03:38,880 --> 00:03:42,440
Speaker 1: the President and his corporate entities from third parties who

54
00:03:42,480 --> 00:03:45,640
Speaker 1: were in possession of those documents. And it was really

55
00:03:45,680 --> 00:03:50,360
Speaker 1: about the limits of Congress's authority to issue that kind

56
00:03:50,360 --> 00:03:55,440
Speaker 1: of subpoena pursuanto or ancillary to its legislative authority. The

57
00:03:55,560 --> 00:04:00,000
Speaker 1: second case was about a different entities authority to issue subpoena,

58
00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:03,440
Speaker 1: as it was the authority of Manhattan prosecutor, a state

59
00:04:03,440 --> 00:04:06,920
Speaker 1: prosecutor acting on behalf of a grand jury in the

60
00:04:06,960 --> 00:04:09,640
Speaker 1: state of New York, to issue a subpoena again to

61
00:04:09,760 --> 00:04:13,440
Speaker 1: a third party for records in their possession that pertained

62
00:04:13,480 --> 00:04:16,560
Speaker 1: to the President. So between the two cases, there was

63
00:04:16,600 --> 00:04:20,680
Speaker 1: actually considerable overlap between the documents that were being sought.

64
00:04:20,960 --> 00:04:23,800
Speaker 1: In fact, the substance of the documents being sought in

65
00:04:23,880 --> 00:04:26,080
Speaker 1: the subpoena issued by the New York grand jury was

66
00:04:26,160 --> 00:04:30,080
Speaker 1: identical to one of the subpoenas issued by a Congressional

67
00:04:30,240 --> 00:04:33,080
Speaker 1: committee in the first case. Did it seem to you

68
00:04:33,240 --> 00:04:37,160
Speaker 1: as if the subpoena from the New York prosecutor was

69
00:04:37,520 --> 00:04:41,480
Speaker 1: a stronger case in many respects and that the justices

70
00:04:41,760 --> 00:04:45,560
Speaker 1: quibbled less about it than the congressional subpoenas it did

71
00:04:45,640 --> 00:04:49,000
Speaker 1: seem like a more streamlined case the second case, the

72
00:04:49,120 --> 00:04:53,000
Speaker 1: issues seemed to be simpler, and one important distinction in

73
00:04:53,040 --> 00:04:56,240
Speaker 1: the second case as well was the willingness of the

74
00:04:56,279 --> 00:05:00,080
Speaker 1: attorney who was representing the Manhattan District Attorney carried on

75
00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:05,000
Speaker 1: to concede limits on the authority of the agency that

76
00:05:05,120 --> 00:05:09,480
Speaker 1: he was representing with respect to its investigative authority when

77
00:05:09,560 --> 00:05:13,280
Speaker 1: investigating matters pertaining to a sitting president. And so one

78
00:05:13,279 --> 00:05:15,760
Speaker 1: of the things that I think frustrated the justices in

79
00:05:15,839 --> 00:05:19,040
Speaker 1: the first case, which involved Congress, was that the attorney

80
00:05:19,080 --> 00:05:22,840
Speaker 1: representing the House of Representatives was really reluctant to concede

81
00:05:22,880 --> 00:05:27,240
Speaker 1: any limiting principle on what it was that Congress had

82
00:05:27,279 --> 00:05:30,839
Speaker 1: the authority to investigate, including with respect to a president.

83
00:05:31,080 --> 00:05:33,320
Speaker 1: So the fact that the lawyer in the second case,

84
00:05:33,360 --> 00:05:36,720
Speaker 1: for the Manhattander was in a sense more modest about

85
00:05:36,760 --> 00:05:40,720
Speaker 1: the assertion of authority in some ways allowed the justices

86
00:05:40,800 --> 00:05:44,800
Speaker 1: to focus in on the narrow issues presented and seeming

87
00:05:44,839 --> 00:05:48,880
Speaker 1: to be less concerned about setting out a limit. At

88
00:05:48,880 --> 00:05:51,960
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court oral arguments on Tuesday over the New

89
00:05:52,040 --> 00:05:56,480
Speaker 1: York Prosecutor's subpoena for President Trump's financial records, Trump's attorney

90
00:05:56,560 --> 00:06:00,320
Speaker 1: j Seculo contended that the president has complete immune from

91
00:06:00,320 --> 00:06:03,719
Speaker 1: criminal subpoenas while in office, a point that many of

92
00:06:03,720 --> 00:06:08,279
Speaker 1: the Justices, including Justice Elena Kagan, took issue with. We're

93
00:06:08,279 --> 00:06:13,120
Speaker 1: asking for temporary presidential immunity. So Mr Shapiro You've said

94
00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:15,240
Speaker 1: that a number of times and made the point which

95
00:06:15,279 --> 00:06:18,480
Speaker 1: we have made that presidents can't be treated just like

96
00:06:18,520 --> 00:06:21,800
Speaker 1: an ordinary citizen. But it's also true and indeed a

97
00:06:21,880 --> 00:06:26,200
Speaker 1: fundamental precept of our constitutional order. The president isn't above

98
00:06:26,279 --> 00:06:29,120
Speaker 1: the law. I've been talking to Jessica Raw, the professor

99
00:06:29,120 --> 00:06:33,599
Speaker 1: at Cardosa Law School. Jessica Trump's personal attorney, was arguing

100
00:06:33,640 --> 00:06:37,640
Speaker 1: for what he called temporary presidential immunity. Do you think

101
00:06:37,640 --> 00:06:41,400
Speaker 1: any of the justices bought that really broad argument. I

102
00:06:41,520 --> 00:06:44,799
Speaker 1: don't know how far the justices will go in issuing

103
00:06:44,839 --> 00:06:47,640
Speaker 1: their opinion. Um they may find that it is not

104
00:06:47,839 --> 00:06:52,360
Speaker 1: necessary to go that far. Certainly, that is a broad

105
00:06:52,440 --> 00:06:57,919
Speaker 1: and unprecedented legal claim. The notion that a subpoena couldn't

106
00:06:57,920 --> 00:07:01,360
Speaker 1: be issued to a third party for records that pertain

107
00:07:01,440 --> 00:07:03,880
Speaker 1: to the president, that that would be covered by this

108
00:07:04,040 --> 00:07:08,680
Speaker 1: assertion of presidential temporary immunity. That is such a broad

109
00:07:08,720 --> 00:07:12,800
Speaker 1: and sweeping claim. It's certainly possible that some of the

110
00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:16,520
Speaker 1: justices would adopt it, but it seems less likely than

111
00:07:16,560 --> 00:07:18,560
Speaker 1: that they would find a way to rule on a

112
00:07:18,640 --> 00:07:21,880
Speaker 1: narrower basis. I thought that the lawyer for the New

113
00:07:21,920 --> 00:07:24,280
Speaker 1: York District attorney's officers did a very good job of

114
00:07:24,360 --> 00:07:27,720
Speaker 1: explaining what's at stake if the court were to hold

115
00:07:28,080 --> 00:07:30,880
Speaker 1: for the president on that issue. He explained, you know,

116
00:07:30,960 --> 00:07:34,920
Speaker 1: not only would the president potentially the immune actually forever,

117
00:07:35,440 --> 00:07:39,160
Speaker 1: because the statute of limitations might run on a crime

118
00:07:39,200 --> 00:07:41,880
Speaker 1: that had been committed while the president was in office,

119
00:07:42,200 --> 00:07:45,440
Speaker 1: but also other parties who might have been involved in

120
00:07:45,520 --> 00:07:50,280
Speaker 1: committing crimes, for example, corporate entities or other individuals who

121
00:07:50,320 --> 00:07:53,840
Speaker 1: committed crimes that would have been revealed by the evidence

122
00:07:54,200 --> 00:07:57,360
Speaker 1: obtained through the grand jury process, and that those people

123
00:07:57,360 --> 00:08:01,120
Speaker 1: effectively would have absolute immunity because as to them to

124
00:08:01,400 --> 00:08:04,720
Speaker 1: the statute of limitations would run by the time the

125
00:08:04,920 --> 00:08:09,200
Speaker 1: prosecutors were able to obtain the information. And also evidence

126
00:08:09,280 --> 00:08:11,960
Speaker 1: just simply wouldn't be available, even if legally there weren't

127
00:08:11,960 --> 00:08:14,600
Speaker 1: a bar through the running of the statute of limitations. Um,

128
00:08:14,640 --> 00:08:16,760
Speaker 1: if the president's right that you can't even issue a

129
00:08:16,800 --> 00:08:19,920
Speaker 1: grand jury subpoena to get these records while he's in office,

130
00:08:20,200 --> 00:08:23,000
Speaker 1: then those records might very well disappear. I mean, records

131
00:08:23,280 --> 00:08:27,760
Speaker 1: unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your perspective, don't survive for avernacy.

132
00:08:27,800 --> 00:08:31,000
Speaker 1: You have to get them while they're available. Equally importantly,

133
00:08:31,120 --> 00:08:35,640
Speaker 1: witnesses may leave the jurisdiction, some they pass away, and

134
00:08:35,800 --> 00:08:39,680
Speaker 1: even those who remain physically available, their memories will fade

135
00:08:39,679 --> 00:08:42,199
Speaker 1: as to the important events. And so that's why it's

136
00:08:42,200 --> 00:08:45,840
Speaker 1: so critical that the grand jury be able to conduct

137
00:08:45,840 --> 00:08:49,959
Speaker 1: its investigation even while the president is in office, even

138
00:08:50,040 --> 00:08:54,000
Speaker 1: if it's true that the president can't be charged and

139
00:08:54,040 --> 00:08:57,520
Speaker 1: tried while he's an office. The idea of harassment, that

140
00:08:57,600 --> 00:09:01,040
Speaker 1: this was just to harass the president came up a lot,

141
00:09:01,679 --> 00:09:06,120
Speaker 1: especially in the congressional subpoenas. It did, and in effect,

142
00:09:06,160 --> 00:09:09,880
Speaker 1: the president's lawyers were arguing that the subpoenas were issued

143
00:09:10,120 --> 00:09:14,920
Speaker 1: on the pretext that Congress was considering legislation, and then

144
00:09:14,960 --> 00:09:18,880
Speaker 1: instead the true motivation was simply to harass and embarrass

145
00:09:18,960 --> 00:09:22,600
Speaker 1: the president. When the president flawyers really were inviting the

146
00:09:22,679 --> 00:09:27,520
Speaker 1: court to look behind the houses asserted purpose, and they

147
00:09:27,520 --> 00:09:31,319
Speaker 1: did assert the legislative purposes to what the President's lawyers

148
00:09:31,400 --> 00:09:35,240
Speaker 1: characterizes their true motivation as evidenced by material in the

149
00:09:35,320 --> 00:09:39,880
Speaker 1: public record, including contemporaneous statements. And if the court follows

150
00:09:39,960 --> 00:09:43,480
Speaker 1: up on that invitation to explore the true motives of Congress,

151
00:09:43,480 --> 00:09:46,400
Speaker 1: that too would be quite interesting because the Court generally

152
00:09:46,440 --> 00:09:50,080
Speaker 1: has rejected such invitations um and usually it's the president

153
00:09:50,480 --> 00:09:53,400
Speaker 1: and his lawyers who are actually arguing to the court

154
00:09:53,440 --> 00:09:56,160
Speaker 1: that the court should disregard motives and should look at

155
00:09:56,160 --> 00:10:00,280
Speaker 1: whether there is an articulable purpose for legislation or an

156
00:10:00,280 --> 00:10:02,880
Speaker 1: executive order, for example in the context of the travel ban,

157
00:10:03,240 --> 00:10:06,320
Speaker 1: and not go beyond the stated purpose. So again, that

158
00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:08,640
Speaker 1: will be an interesting question to see how the Court

159
00:10:08,640 --> 00:10:12,800
Speaker 1: addresses it in the opinions that it issues. Several justices

160
00:10:12,920 --> 00:10:15,880
Speaker 1: asked why this case was different from U. S. D.

161
00:10:16,080 --> 00:10:20,319
Speaker 1: Nixon or Jones v. Clinton or Whitewater. Did they get

162
00:10:20,320 --> 00:10:22,800
Speaker 1: a clear answer to that. Well, I think that some

163
00:10:23,000 --> 00:10:25,720
Speaker 1: of what the justices were trying to get at was

164
00:10:25,840 --> 00:10:31,040
Speaker 1: some articulation of the specific burden that these subpoenas were

165
00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:35,080
Speaker 1: going to impose on the president in exercising his article

166
00:10:35,160 --> 00:10:39,679
Speaker 1: to authority. And the justices pointed out, for example, that

167
00:10:39,800 --> 00:10:43,800
Speaker 1: in Clinton versus Jones, President Clinton was required to sit

168
00:10:43,880 --> 00:10:47,640
Speaker 1: for a deposition, which in a sense was quite burdensome.

169
00:10:47,920 --> 00:10:50,240
Speaker 1: But here the subpoenas, which had been issued to a

170
00:10:50,360 --> 00:10:55,320
Speaker 1: third party, in a sense imposed no articulable burden on

171
00:10:55,400 --> 00:10:57,680
Speaker 1: the president. In terms of his time, or at least

172
00:10:57,679 --> 00:11:00,400
Speaker 1: that's what the justices were suggesting, and they were looking

173
00:11:00,440 --> 00:11:03,880
Speaker 1: for a response to that from the president's lawyers, And

174
00:11:03,920 --> 00:11:06,120
Speaker 1: what the president's lawyers and the Department of Justice lawyers

175
00:11:06,160 --> 00:11:08,839
Speaker 1: said in response was, well, it's more than just a

176
00:11:08,960 --> 00:11:11,040
Speaker 1: question of how long does it take you to literally

177
00:11:11,040 --> 00:11:13,480
Speaker 1: comply with the subpoena um. You know, that may be

178
00:11:13,559 --> 00:11:17,600
Speaker 1: in a sense instantaneous because everything is electronic, but it's

179
00:11:17,720 --> 00:11:20,840
Speaker 1: a burden in terms of time of having to sit

180
00:11:20,880 --> 00:11:23,120
Speaker 1: with your lawyers and talk about whether they're going to

181
00:11:23,679 --> 00:11:28,040
Speaker 1: resist certain documents being turned over, and it's a distraction

182
00:11:28,360 --> 00:11:31,280
Speaker 1: from the president being able to focus on his other

183
00:11:31,400 --> 00:11:35,839
Speaker 1: presidential duties. And then they went further the president's lawyers

184
00:11:35,840 --> 00:11:38,800
Speaker 1: and arguing that it was essentially going to be undermining

185
00:11:38,920 --> 00:11:43,480
Speaker 1: his ability to perform his presidential functions because it would

186
00:11:43,559 --> 00:11:47,080
Speaker 1: politically undermine him. That even if it didn't literally take

187
00:11:47,120 --> 00:11:49,840
Speaker 1: his time, even if he wasn't spending time with his

188
00:11:50,000 --> 00:11:54,360
Speaker 1: lawyers going over the case that if documents were released

189
00:11:54,679 --> 00:11:58,319
Speaker 1: that were embarrassing to him, that that would undermine him politically,

190
00:11:58,640 --> 00:12:02,760
Speaker 1: and that therefore would be an impairment of the presidency.

191
00:12:02,840 --> 00:12:05,840
Speaker 1: And that's going to be a really interesting thing to

192
00:12:05,920 --> 00:12:08,840
Speaker 1: see how the justices address it in their opinion, in

193
00:12:08,880 --> 00:12:12,360
Speaker 1: terms of thinking about, well, what's the burden imposed on

194
00:12:12,400 --> 00:12:15,960
Speaker 1: the presidency? Are they going to take into account this

195
00:12:16,080 --> 00:12:19,680
Speaker 1: sense of through political undermining of the president as a

196
00:12:19,800 --> 00:12:23,760
Speaker 1: cognizable burden that a president put as assert in resisting

197
00:12:23,760 --> 00:12:28,000
Speaker 1: a subpoena. Every lawyer knows that grand jury secrecy is

198
00:12:28,160 --> 00:12:31,760
Speaker 1: paramount to the system. So what did you make of

199
00:12:31,920 --> 00:12:37,080
Speaker 1: Justice Alito questioning whether grand jury materials would be leaked

200
00:12:37,240 --> 00:12:40,440
Speaker 1: to the New York Times. That was an odd moment

201
00:12:40,480 --> 00:12:44,800
Speaker 1: in the argument, It certainly was. I thought that uh

202
00:12:45,040 --> 00:12:48,360
Speaker 1: carried unhandled it very well, just brought it back to

203
00:12:48,480 --> 00:12:51,040
Speaker 1: the issues before the court um. There had been a

204
00:12:51,120 --> 00:12:55,240
Speaker 1: question about whether or not a state's grand jury secrecy

205
00:12:55,360 --> 00:12:59,000
Speaker 1: rules and whether people who had been before the grand

206
00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:01,680
Speaker 1: jury or prosecute or members of the grand jury were

207
00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:04,280
Speaker 1: permitted to speak to the public and the press about

208
00:13:04,280 --> 00:13:06,400
Speaker 1: what had happened in the grand jury, whether that would

209
00:13:06,440 --> 00:13:10,040
Speaker 1: impact the analysis at all. And so I think that

210
00:13:10,640 --> 00:13:12,800
Speaker 1: Mr Donn just you know, tried to fold in that

211
00:13:12,840 --> 00:13:17,840
Speaker 1: particular question about leaks into that general zin And what

212
00:13:18,040 --> 00:13:21,360
Speaker 1: I thought he said quite well was simply that we

213
00:13:21,720 --> 00:13:24,920
Speaker 1: You know, we generally assume that prosecutors act in good

214
00:13:24,960 --> 00:13:28,600
Speaker 1: faith and followed their duty. And you know, where there

215
00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:31,559
Speaker 1: are rules, which is true in most jurisdictions that they

216
00:13:31,559 --> 00:13:35,640
Speaker 1: have to preserve grand jury secrecy, one should assume that

217
00:13:35,760 --> 00:13:40,760
Speaker 1: they will absent evidence to the contrary, and that provided

218
00:13:40,800 --> 00:13:46,040
Speaker 1: ample protection to keep the material secret in the ordinary course.

219
00:13:46,760 --> 00:13:49,920
Speaker 1: So do you have any inkling about how they might

220
00:13:50,040 --> 00:13:53,640
Speaker 1: rule in the case in the cases, I think that

221
00:13:53,679 --> 00:13:59,040
Speaker 1: there there certainly is the possibility in the first case

222
00:13:59,640 --> 00:14:02,480
Speaker 1: that they could send it back. This is the congressional

223
00:14:02,480 --> 00:14:06,559
Speaker 1: subpoena case and say we're going to articulate a different

224
00:14:06,679 --> 00:14:10,840
Speaker 1: standard and then the standard articulated by the Court of

225
00:14:10,880 --> 00:14:16,439
Speaker 1: Appeals for when Congress can get material pertaining to the president.

226
00:14:16,840 --> 00:14:19,320
Speaker 1: We don't think it's a limitless authority. We're going to

227
00:14:19,360 --> 00:14:22,120
Speaker 1: impost some limits and we're going to impose some standards.

228
00:14:22,280 --> 00:14:25,120
Speaker 1: They could do that, perhaps perhaps there's a majority to

229
00:14:25,160 --> 00:14:30,280
Speaker 1: do that, which would effectively preserve congressional authority to issue

230
00:14:30,320 --> 00:14:33,920
Speaker 1: subpoenas in some context, but perhaps not in a limitless fashion.

231
00:14:34,520 --> 00:14:36,120
Speaker 1: If they did that, that would have the effect of

232
00:14:36,160 --> 00:14:38,560
Speaker 1: sending it back to the lower court, which would then

233
00:14:38,600 --> 00:14:41,280
Speaker 1: have to decide whether that standard had been met, and

234
00:14:41,360 --> 00:14:44,520
Speaker 1: that could result even if it's results in a decision

235
00:14:45,000 --> 00:14:48,120
Speaker 1: in favor of the House, the ultimate disclosure of the

236
00:14:48,160 --> 00:14:52,040
Speaker 1: records might well be beyond the November election. But I

237
00:14:52,080 --> 00:14:56,160
Speaker 1: really at this point can't predict exactly how how that

238
00:14:56,320 --> 00:15:00,640
Speaker 1: decision is going to come out. And similarly, for the

239
00:15:00,720 --> 00:15:05,000
Speaker 1: second case, certainly there seemed to be a group of

240
00:15:05,080 --> 00:15:09,640
Speaker 1: justices who were concerned about harassment of this president, but

241
00:15:10,080 --> 00:15:13,840
Speaker 1: they're also going to be looking for principles that apply

242
00:15:14,000 --> 00:15:16,680
Speaker 1: more broadly. And I was struck actually in the first

243
00:15:16,800 --> 00:15:20,240
Speaker 1: argument by a line from Justice Brier, who said, you know,

244
00:15:20,360 --> 00:15:24,120
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about this sort of limitless authority that the

245
00:15:24,160 --> 00:15:27,520
Speaker 1: House is saying it has in the hands of another

246
00:15:27,600 --> 00:15:31,240
Speaker 1: future Senator McCarthy, wielding against another president. Right. So I

247
00:15:31,240 --> 00:15:33,400
Speaker 1: think they're going to be trying to think about, as

248
00:15:33,400 --> 00:15:35,680
Speaker 1: they must as the Supreme Court of the United States,

249
00:15:35,720 --> 00:15:39,240
Speaker 1: how whatever principles they articulate will apply not only in

250
00:15:39,280 --> 00:15:42,160
Speaker 1: this case but in all future cases. We should mention

251
00:15:42,160 --> 00:15:45,520
Speaker 1: that even if the New York prosecutor gets the tax

252
00:15:45,560 --> 00:15:48,160
Speaker 1: returns and all the financial records they're looking for, those

253
00:15:48,200 --> 00:15:51,000
Speaker 1: are going to be secret because of the grand jury secrecy,

254
00:15:51,160 --> 00:15:54,560
Speaker 1: so the public is most likely not going to see

255
00:15:54,920 --> 00:15:59,080
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's tax returns before the election. That's a really

256
00:15:59,120 --> 00:16:02,640
Speaker 1: important point. Regardless of the outcome of these cases, even

257
00:16:02,720 --> 00:16:05,520
Speaker 1: if the rulings are in favor of the entities speaking

258
00:16:05,520 --> 00:16:08,800
Speaker 1: the information um, there is a very very good chance

259
00:16:09,200 --> 00:16:13,000
Speaker 1: that that information, even if provided to Congress and to

260
00:16:13,120 --> 00:16:16,320
Speaker 1: the Manhattan District Attorney's office and the grand jury there

261
00:16:16,720 --> 00:16:18,720
Speaker 1: would not wind up in the public domain for a

262
00:16:18,800 --> 00:16:23,080
Speaker 1: very long time. Thanks Jessica. That's former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth,

263
00:16:23,360 --> 00:16:26,280
Speaker 1: a professor at Cardozo Law School. And that's it for

264
00:16:26,320 --> 00:16:29,000
Speaker 1: this edition of Bloomberg Law. Remember you can always get

265
00:16:29,000 --> 00:16:31,960
Speaker 1: the latest legal news by going to our Bloomberg Law podcast.

266
00:16:32,280 --> 00:16:35,240
Speaker 1: You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud for at Bloomberg

267
00:16:35,240 --> 00:16:39,320
Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso. Thanks

268
00:16:39,360 --> 00:16:41,440
Speaker 1: so much for listening, and remember to tune into the

269
00:16:41,440 --> 00:16:44,600
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show weeknights at ten pm Eastern right here

270
00:16:44,640 --> 00:16:50,480
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. Social distancing slows the spread of coronavirus,

271
00:16:50,720 --> 00:16:52,720
Speaker 1: so we should all stay home to lower the risk

272
00:16:52,800 --> 00:16:56,560
Speaker 1: for everyone. More info at coronavirus dot gov. Let's all

273
00:16:56,600 --> 00:17:00,120
Speaker 1: do our part because we're all hashtag alone together. Are

274
00:17:00,320 --> 00:17:01,800
Speaker 1: brought to you by the ADD Council