WEBVTT - Legal Experts Sue Trump Over Ethics Concerns (Audio) 0:00:00.240 --> 0:00:04.400 Is President Donald Trump already violating the Constitution. That's the 0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:07.520 contention of a new lawsuit filed by a government watchdog 0:00:07.560 --> 0:00:10.360 group today. It's represented by some of the biggest names 0:00:10.360 --> 0:00:14.000 in constitutional law. The claim is that Trump's continuing stake 0:00:14.040 --> 0:00:17.040 in his business puts him in violation of the Constitution's 0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:20.680 emoluments clause, which bars government officials from accepting things of 0:00:20.800 --> 0:00:24.880 value from foreign governments. The group, known as Citizens for 0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:28.560 Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, points the money paid to 0:00:28.560 --> 0:00:31.720 Trump's hotels and golf courses, payments on leases held at 0:00:31.760 --> 0:00:35.720 Trump Tower, and the deals that confer rights overseas Trump's 0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:38.560 show The Apprentice. The group is asking a federal judge 0:00:38.560 --> 0:00:41.520 in Manhattan to bar Trump from accepting payments from foreign 0:00:41.600 --> 0:00:45.879 governments and government owned entities. Moments ago, Trump told reporters 0:00:45.920 --> 0:00:49.360 the lawsuit was quote totally without merit. He has taken 0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:52.720 the position that under the law, presidents cannot have a 0:00:52.800 --> 0:00:56.440 conflict of interest. Does the lawsuit lawsuits stand a chance? 0:00:56.560 --> 0:00:59.400 And what would the implications be if it does. Our 0:00:59.440 --> 0:01:02.639 guests to talk about the new lawsuits new lawsuit are 0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:06.480 Caroline Frederickson, president of the American Constitution Society, which has 0:01:06.520 --> 0:01:09.720 been rather critical of the new president and Jonathan Adler, 0:01:09.800 --> 0:01:15.680 a law professor at Case Western University, Welcome to you both. Caroline. 0:01:15.760 --> 0:01:19.520 Let's start with you make make the case for this 0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:22.040 this lawsuit. What's the argument that says that Trump is 0:01:22.120 --> 0:01:26.160 violating the molument? I mean, first of all, UH, he's 0:01:26.240 --> 0:01:29.800 conflating several things when he says the president uh has 0:01:29.840 --> 0:01:32.479 no no conflict of interest. UM. You know, there are 0:01:32.760 --> 0:01:37.880 many statutes uh, and lots of custom about how presidents 0:01:37.920 --> 0:01:40.600 are supposed to behave to make the American people believe 0:01:40.680 --> 0:01:46.160 that they have our nation's interests first, not their own pocketbook. UM. 0:01:46.200 --> 0:01:48.880 But this is the constitution, um. And we we're talking 0:01:48.880 --> 0:01:54.960 about is the Emoluments Clause UM, which was adopted by 0:01:55.000 --> 0:01:58.320 the Framers because of great concern about foreign governments being 0:01:58.320 --> 0:02:02.240 able to influence those to run our country and by definition, 0:02:02.640 --> 0:02:07.360 to influence the president. UM. It's it's very squarely on point. 0:02:07.520 --> 0:02:10.680 It says that no person holding any office of profit 0:02:10.800 --> 0:02:16.960 or trust shall, without the consent of Congress, except any president, emolument, office, 0:02:17.040 --> 0:02:20.520 or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, 0:02:20.639 --> 0:02:24.200 or foreign state. So you know, I think, um, you know, 0:02:24.280 --> 0:02:27.760 it's clear that the president is covered by the emoluments clause. UM, 0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:30.360 And I think, um, the advocates who brought this suit 0:02:30.400 --> 0:02:34.040 have a very very strong argument, UM that there is 0:02:34.040 --> 0:02:37.640 a potential, certainly for a violation by the payments that 0:02:37.680 --> 0:02:42.720 are made to the company. Jonathan Trump's attorneys at Morgan, 0:02:42.800 --> 0:02:47.239 Lewis and Bucks has said, Jonathan, are you still there? 0:02:49.160 --> 0:02:51.600 I think we've lost him, just for just for a 0:02:51.639 --> 0:02:55.200 few moments. So Caroline Trump's attorneys have said that the 0:02:55.320 --> 0:02:59.920 monuments clause doesn't apply to arms length transactions in which 0:03:00.040 --> 0:03:03.320 the president's business is engaged, such as paying a hotel 0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:07.960 room bill to a corporate entity. What your answer to that? Well, 0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:10.480 you know, I honestly, how arms length is it to 0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:13.519 have your children running your business? Um? And that's that's 0:03:13.560 --> 0:03:16.000 not a very long arm for sure. UM. But in 0:03:16.040 --> 0:03:18.679 any case, I think the issue is really about, um, 0:03:18.840 --> 0:03:21.080 what impact it has on the president and how he 0:03:21.160 --> 0:03:25.119 makes decisions. Uh. The the influence is what they are 0:03:25.160 --> 0:03:29.079 going to be cultivating. Uh. The knowledge of their spending 0:03:29.080 --> 0:03:31.799 will be easily conveyed to the President's clear that there 0:03:31.800 --> 0:03:34.280 could be an influence. So you know, I don't know 0:03:34.280 --> 0:03:36.600 what kind of arms length that is certainly not in 0:03:36.600 --> 0:03:40.920 my mind. Well isn't though, If all a foreign government 0:03:40.960 --> 0:03:44.280 is doing, or you know, foreign official is doing is 0:03:44.320 --> 0:03:49.160 coming to, say the Trump International Hotel and paying you know, 0:03:49.240 --> 0:03:52.680 whatever rate anybody else would pay there, I think that's 0:03:52.680 --> 0:03:55.680 what they're talking about with an arms length transaction. Uh. 0:03:56.200 --> 0:04:00.000 Why should that be something that potentially puts the president 0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:03.840 in violation of the Constitution. Well, I'd say two things. 0:04:03.880 --> 0:04:08.560 One is, um, we've heard a very um explicit um 0:04:09.360 --> 0:04:13.640 decisions by foreign governments to direct their spending to the 0:04:13.680 --> 0:04:18.160 Trump properties um and making it publicly known. Um. That's 0:04:18.279 --> 0:04:20.400 very different from you know, I'm going to go have 0:04:20.560 --> 0:04:24.680 lunch there once a month um. Uh. And so I 0:04:24.680 --> 0:04:26.400 think that's something that has to be looked into. The 0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:30.640 other pieces that what's very important about lawsuits is um 0:04:30.680 --> 0:04:32.640 that they allow us to have a better understanding of 0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:35.719 the facts. And through the discovery process. One of the 0:04:35.760 --> 0:04:39.240 things that I know that the the those who are 0:04:39.320 --> 0:04:42.040 involved with this lawsuit hope to get ahold of ore 0:04:42.080 --> 0:04:46.000 the president's tax returns um. And in those tax returns, 0:04:46.040 --> 0:04:47.920 we'd have a much better sense of how much money 0:04:47.960 --> 0:04:51.320 he's really getting from these foreign governments. And I think 0:04:51.360 --> 0:04:54.320 that's an important piece of this. I mean, we we 0:04:54.440 --> 0:04:57.120 just don't know. I mean, right now, you know there 0:04:57.160 --> 0:04:59.680 there's a possibility that there that that he's not getting 0:05:00.200 --> 0:05:03.720 any payments from from foreign governments, but there is definitely 0:05:03.760 --> 0:05:07.400 a possibility that he is. Jonathan Adler is back with us. 0:05:07.839 --> 0:05:12.320 Jonathan is standing, which is the plaintiffs showing that they 0:05:12.320 --> 0:05:17.760 would suffer direct injury a problem in this lawsuit. Well, 0:05:17.800 --> 0:05:20.320 I think standing is a huge problem in this lawsuit. 0:05:20.440 --> 0:05:23.520 As a general matter, UH, saying that you are really 0:05:23.520 --> 0:05:26.880 concerned that the federal government or or an executive officer 0:05:26.960 --> 0:05:29.720 is violating the law is not enough to invoke the 0:05:29.800 --> 0:05:33.279 jurisdiction of federal courts. UH. And in this case, UM, 0:05:33.600 --> 0:05:35.640 I don't believe that that the plaintiffs have been able 0:05:35.640 --> 0:05:41.000 to identify anything that causes them UH legally cognizable injury, 0:05:41.440 --> 0:05:44.760 let alone satisfies the other requirements of standing, that that 0:05:44.839 --> 0:05:48.680 injury be traceable to the alleged legal violation, and that 0:05:49.200 --> 0:05:52.600 or that a UH favorable judgment would address that injury. 0:05:53.200 --> 0:05:56.200 I think I think it's it's in the very aggressive 0:05:56.240 --> 0:05:59.839 argument upstanding that they're making, and I would not expect 0:05:59.839 --> 0:06:02.919 it to google claw. Carolyn, What's what's your response to 0:06:02.960 --> 0:06:05.120 that I find this is one of one of these 0:06:05.120 --> 0:06:08.320 issues standing that UH. You know, during the Obama years, 0:06:08.360 --> 0:06:12.080 it was the the Republican opponents of Obama who are 0:06:12.160 --> 0:06:14.760 arguing for robust standing, and now the shoe seems to 0:06:14.800 --> 0:06:19.159 be on the other foot. Uh. Well, you know, it 0:06:19.200 --> 0:06:21.600 is an aggressive argument. I'd have to agree, but I 0:06:21.880 --> 0:06:25.360 think it has UM some merit. There. There's a nine 0:06:25.839 --> 0:06:30.160 two Supreme Court decision in which a group that UH 0:06:30.640 --> 0:06:33.479 was arguing for fair housing UM was able to get 0:06:33.560 --> 0:06:37.640 standing because it UH it showed that its use of 0:06:37.680 --> 0:06:40.360 testers to find out employment discrip whether there was a 0:06:40.640 --> 0:06:46.320 housing discrimination UH was cognizable UM. And so the argument 0:06:46.360 --> 0:06:49.400 here is that is that crew, the Citizens for Responsive 0:06:49.520 --> 0:06:52.920 Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is the plaintiff UM, 0:06:53.040 --> 0:06:57.760 is diverting its resources to UMH the work that UH 0:06:57.760 --> 0:07:01.520 it has to do on government transparency UH and UM. 0:07:01.600 --> 0:07:04.360 So you know, it's certainly there's a parallel UM. I. 0:07:04.560 --> 0:07:06.960 I you know, I think there's it's it's one of 0:07:07.000 --> 0:07:10.080 the issues that is going to be most litigated in 0:07:10.080 --> 0:07:12.200 this case, no doubt. UM. But I think if they've 0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:14.720 got a claim, a colorable claim, and it's we'll see 0:07:14.720 --> 0:07:16.640 how the courts take it. We're talking about the new 0:07:16.720 --> 0:07:20.200 lawsuits that accuses Donald Trump of violating the Constitution through 0:07:20.240 --> 0:07:23.600 his business dealings with foreign governments. Our guests are Caroline 0:07:23.640 --> 0:07:28.440 Frederickson of the American Constitution Society and Jonathan Adler, professor 0:07:28.480 --> 0:07:32.320 at Case Western. Uh. Jonathan, Uh, I think this might 0:07:32.360 --> 0:07:35.960 have been when you were temporarily off, but Caroline was 0:07:36.120 --> 0:07:38.920 was making the case for this lawsuit. And basically the 0:07:39.000 --> 0:07:42.680 argument is the emoluments Clause is written very broadly, and 0:07:42.760 --> 0:07:46.280 these are situations where foreign governments might be able to 0:07:46.400 --> 0:07:49.720 curry favor with the new president by staying at his 0:07:49.800 --> 0:07:53.720 hotel or perhaps giving him a sweetheart deal on on 0:07:53.760 --> 0:07:56.840 some sort of thing. If the plaintiffs could get over 0:07:56.880 --> 0:08:01.720 the standing problem. Is there a subtive argument that the 0:08:01.720 --> 0:08:06.080 president is in violation of the Constitution. There is an argument, 0:08:06.080 --> 0:08:09.680 and I do think there is serious academic debate over 0:08:10.320 --> 0:08:13.120 whether the president is properly covered by the clause, and 0:08:13.120 --> 0:08:16.920 and there is certainly academic debate about how we identify 0:08:17.040 --> 0:08:21.680 the difference between money obtained in a on length transaction 0:08:22.240 --> 0:08:25.440 and what is actually an emolument or an improper inducement. 0:08:26.240 --> 0:08:28.720 But the larger question is really whether or not this 0:08:28.760 --> 0:08:31.400 is the sort of thing that should be handled in 0:08:31.400 --> 0:08:35.559 the federal courts. The emoluments cause itself gives Congress the 0:08:35.600 --> 0:08:38.319 authority to decide what the line is between the permissible 0:08:38.520 --> 0:08:43.360 and impermissible emolument. Uh. The impeachment clause specifically identifies bribery 0:08:43.800 --> 0:08:46.480 has a potential grounds for impeachment. So I think the 0:08:46.559 --> 0:08:48.960 larger question is whether or not this is the sort 0:08:48.960 --> 0:08:51.280 of thing that the political process to deal with or 0:08:51.320 --> 0:08:53.680 the sort of thing that should be left in the 0:08:53.760 --> 0:08:55.920 hands of, you know, a single federal judge in a 0:08:55.960 --> 0:09:00.680 single court case. Caroline. This disorganization all so filed a 0:09:00.760 --> 0:09:05.320 separate complaint on Friday with the General Services Administration over 0:09:05.400 --> 0:09:08.959 provision in the Trump organization's lease of the old Post 0:09:09.080 --> 0:09:13.440 Office building for the Trump Hotel. That provision prohibits any 0:09:13.480 --> 0:09:16.760 elected official of the United States government from being part 0:09:16.800 --> 0:09:20.800 of the lease or deriving any benefit from it. Does 0:09:20.840 --> 0:09:25.240 that sound like a clearer claim? Well, it also sounds 0:09:25.280 --> 0:09:28.360 like a clear claim. Um. I mean, I guess I 0:09:28.640 --> 0:09:31.720 think the Constitution and just to respond to Professor Adler, 0:09:32.000 --> 0:09:35.319 you know, specifically frame to ensure that when the political 0:09:35.320 --> 0:09:38.720 branches are pailing, that the judiciary can can have a 0:09:38.800 --> 0:09:42.160 role so that um, and this Congress is not necessarily 0:09:42.160 --> 0:09:44.840 one that is going to see fit uh. It's certainly 0:09:44.840 --> 0:09:48.280 not now to explore a violation of the Monuments clause. UM. 0:09:49.200 --> 0:09:51.199 But I do think that the the issue is very 0:09:51.240 --> 0:09:56.240 clear in the lease UM that it forbids uh uh 0:09:56.840 --> 0:10:00.520 an official of the government to umu to the same 0:10:01.040 --> 0:10:03.280 to have that kind of relationship with the g s 0:10:03.320 --> 0:10:06.000 A UM. So it'll be interesting to see how that 0:10:06.080 --> 0:10:13.120 case proceeds as well. UM. But it certainly seems rather straightforward. Jonathan. 0:10:13.320 --> 0:10:16.200 Let's let's play this out just a little bit. UM. 0:10:16.520 --> 0:10:20.320 If a court were to find that the president is 0:10:20.320 --> 0:10:24.880 in violation of the Monuments clause, Uh, what would happen there? 0:10:24.920 --> 0:10:27.880 So you have a court that orders him to what 0:10:28.120 --> 0:10:33.960 divest himself of these assets? Um? Do we think that 0:10:33.960 --> 0:10:37.240 that this president is actually gonna gonna agree to do that? 0:10:37.600 --> 0:10:40.679 Is this? You know? So we're concerned that this is 0:10:40.760 --> 0:10:45.080 getting getting us into a real constitutionally messy area. Well, 0:10:45.120 --> 0:10:47.680 that that really highlights the problem and the idea that 0:10:47.760 --> 0:10:52.280 a federal court would be entrusted with overseeing the financial 0:10:52.320 --> 0:10:56.120 relationships of the president and deciding what is or is 0:10:56.200 --> 0:11:00.480 not an acceptable relationship when the Constitution expressively give Congress 0:11:00.480 --> 0:11:04.120 that authority would create a separation of powers nightmare. And 0:11:04.160 --> 0:11:07.600 it's well established in the Supreme Court jurisprudence that in 0:11:07.679 --> 0:11:12.200 these sorts of intra branch UH controversies and conflicts, particularly 0:11:12.200 --> 0:11:15.920 those that are designed to prevent protect can things like corruption, 0:11:16.360 --> 0:11:18.360 that it's not clear the courts have a role. So 0:11:18.400 --> 0:11:21.640 in cases like Nixon versus United States, Extreme Court said 0:11:21.960 --> 0:11:26.160 the courts have no ability to even ask whether UH 0:11:26.200 --> 0:11:30.079 Congress followed proper procedures when impeaching a judge, that it's 0:11:30.120 --> 0:11:32.120 not a question of what Congress got a close and 0:11:32.160 --> 0:11:35.000 off its courts have no jurisdiction to address the question, 0:11:35.040 --> 0:11:38.160 and that when we play out what would be involved 0:11:38.440 --> 0:11:41.839 if the crew were successful in the suit, we see 0:11:41.880 --> 0:11:44.719 why this is really not the sort of thing that's 0:11:44.920 --> 0:11:47.000 best handles in courts. And I say that as someone 0:11:47.280 --> 0:11:51.000 who agrees that there are serious questions about the president's 0:11:51.000 --> 0:11:53.840 potential conflicts of interest and who would like to see 0:11:54.200 --> 0:11:57.640 a group more actions to to assure all of us 0:11:57.679 --> 0:12:00.880 that proper financial separation has been made, I just really 0:12:00.880 --> 0:12:05.720 don't believe that that litigation is the way we accomplish that, Caroline, 0:12:05.760 --> 0:12:08.880 what's your response to that? Well, I mean, I think 0:12:08.880 --> 0:12:12.640 the constitution um makes it clear, Um, Congress can certainly 0:12:12.679 --> 0:12:17.240 consent to allow uh the president to get gifts from 0:12:17.240 --> 0:12:19.840 foreign states. Um. It does. The clause does not, however, 0:12:19.960 --> 0:12:23.800 say that Congress will adjudicate whether the emoluments Clause has 0:12:23.840 --> 0:12:26.079 been violated or not. So I think it stands apart 0:12:26.120 --> 0:12:30.120 from impeachment, which has that particular process laid out. Um. 0:12:30.120 --> 0:12:33.160 And when we are in a situation where the government, um, 0:12:33.200 --> 0:12:37.079 you know is in essence a one party state, uh, 0:12:37.200 --> 0:12:38.960 you know, we are we left to say that any 0:12:38.960 --> 0:12:45.800 ethics violation, any constitutionally uh sufficient ethical violations that the 0:12:46.080 --> 0:12:48.360 president is going to engage in, we just have to 0:12:48.400 --> 0:12:50.640 look the other way because nobody's going to be able 0:12:50.640 --> 0:12:53.440 to to do anything about it. I can't imagine that 0:12:53.440 --> 0:12:56.800 that's what our framers, um, we're thinking when they constructed 0:12:56.840 --> 0:12:59.520 the emoluments clause, that there would be no uh, no 0:12:59.640 --> 0:13:03.480 response possible. So I actually think this is uh, you know, 0:13:03.559 --> 0:13:07.040 it's something that uh uh it's it's the role of 0:13:07.040 --> 0:13:10.320 the judiciary specifically to enforce these types of provisions in 0:13:10.360 --> 0:13:15.320 the Constitution. Jonathan, would uh the standing argument be a 0:13:15.520 --> 0:13:18.280 stronger if, as I guess, the a c l U 0:13:18.400 --> 0:13:23.120 is considering filing a suit on behalf of a competing hotel. 0:13:23.280 --> 0:13:28.000 For example, somebody who says I got less business because uh, 0:13:28.440 --> 0:13:30.880 people who might have stayed at my hotel instead go 0:13:31.400 --> 0:13:33.720 to stay at the Trump hotel to curry favor with 0:13:33.800 --> 0:13:36.920 the new president. Would that be an argument that would 0:13:36.920 --> 0:13:41.800 get him over the standing hump. I still think that 0:13:41.800 --> 0:13:44.240 that argument might have some problems, but I do think 0:13:44.240 --> 0:13:47.920 it would be a significantly stronger argument for standing than 0:13:48.000 --> 0:13:51.280 we see in this case. Of courts have recognized, at 0:13:51.320 --> 0:13:56.480 least in certain circumstances, that competitors can have standing to 0:13:56.679 --> 0:14:02.240 challenge governmental actions which unfairly benefit of competing terms. Caroline. 0:14:02.360 --> 0:14:06.160 Is a problem here that there is very little law 0:14:06.520 --> 0:14:10.880 as far as litigation on the emoluments clause. Hey, how well, 0:14:10.960 --> 0:14:14.600 that's certainly to put it mildly. Um. Um, I think, 0:14:14.640 --> 0:14:16.760 which is why the law professors love it. Um. In 0:14:16.800 --> 0:14:21.160 many ways, this is such a great area for discussion. Um. 0:14:21.200 --> 0:14:24.120 It's intriguing, it's interesting, um. But you know, really, what 0:14:24.200 --> 0:14:29.920 it reflects is that the practice of our presidents till 0:14:29.960 --> 0:14:35.200 now has been consistent that the expectation is so broadly 0:14:35.280 --> 0:14:38.960 shared that the president must make it clear to the 0:14:39.000 --> 0:14:43.480 American public that he holds our nation's interests ahead of 0:14:43.520 --> 0:14:47.360 his own. It's the most portant, important part of his job, 0:14:47.640 --> 0:14:50.200 that it is the duty that he holds um. And 0:14:50.240 --> 0:14:53.200 I think we're seeing that shaken. We've never we've never 0:14:53.240 --> 0:14:56.400 had to litigate this before, because presidents have made clear 0:14:56.520 --> 0:15:01.040 that they are not interested in uh in in misleading 0:15:01.080 --> 0:15:04.960 the American public. Uh and that we have standards for 0:15:05.040 --> 0:15:08.800 ethical behavior that they have attempted to follow. I mean, 0:15:08.800 --> 0:15:12.080 not always perfectly, perhaps, but um. I think we had 0:15:12.120 --> 0:15:16.120 some very strong norms about what was acceptable, and President 0:15:16.120 --> 0:15:19.880 Trump has violated every one of them. Jonathan, There this 0:15:19.920 --> 0:15:22.280 issue did come up in a slightly different, well maybe 0:15:22.320 --> 0:15:25.120 a very very different context at the beginning of the 0:15:25.120 --> 0:15:28.040 Obama administration when he was going to be awarded the 0:15:28.080 --> 0:15:31.760 Nobel Peace Prize and there was a Justice Department assessment 0:15:32.520 --> 0:15:35.080 that that determined he would not be in violation of 0:15:35.120 --> 0:15:38.840 the Monuments clause by accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Does 0:15:38.880 --> 0:15:41.680 that affect the analysis here at all in your mind? 0:15:43.040 --> 0:15:44.960 I don't know that particular one does. I mean, there 0:15:44.960 --> 0:15:48.920 are there are examples going back through history where presidents 0:15:48.960 --> 0:15:51.520 have sought legal opinions or whether or not they could 0:15:51.560 --> 0:15:54.800 accept certain sorts of things, and a handful of cases 0:15:54.840 --> 0:16:01.880 involving um questions about presidents uh own financial affairs, not 0:16:01.920 --> 0:16:04.520 in not cases like Wittige Eaten Court, but but instances 0:16:04.560 --> 0:16:06.920 in which was this was examined. But but Karen is 0:16:06.960 --> 0:16:09.520 right that that we don't have a lot that's on point. 0:16:10.120 --> 0:16:13.240 Not even the various Office of Legal Council memos that 0:16:13.320 --> 0:16:18.400 address these questions, um are are rather thin on the 0:16:18.520 --> 0:16:22.080 things that are directly relevant to this lawsuit. So we 0:16:22.120 --> 0:16:24.920 don't have nearly as much established precedent in this area 0:16:24.960 --> 0:16:30.960 as as we would like to have to bring some clarity, Caroline, 0:16:31.120 --> 0:16:34.880 as far as the litigation itself would go, you have 0:16:35.000 --> 0:16:37.720 to even no matter which way a federal judge ruled, 0:16:37.800 --> 0:16:40.360 you have to believe that that's going to be appealed 0:16:40.760 --> 0:16:43.400 and appealed as high as it can go. So we 0:16:43.560 --> 0:16:48.440 take might take years for this to be decided potentially, um. 0:16:48.480 --> 0:16:50.800 You know, hopefully I think the courts can recognize that 0:16:50.800 --> 0:16:56.200 that an issue of this importance requires expedited, expedited process. 0:16:56.280 --> 0:17:00.520 But you know, legal work is never speedy. Um uh 0:17:00.560 --> 0:17:03.600 So I'm expecting it will take some time. But as 0:17:03.640 --> 0:17:05.679 that goes on, uh, you know, if they make it 0:17:05.680 --> 0:17:08.000 past the first hurdle and they get into discovery, they 0:17:08.040 --> 0:17:12.280 will potentially be further information coming out that will strengthen 0:17:12.320 --> 0:17:15.479 the case UM, and strengthen the case politically perhaps as 0:17:15.480 --> 0:17:21.240 well as legally UM. And the tax returns, yes, indeed, 0:17:21.280 --> 0:17:24.280 other types of information that comes out about payments that 0:17:24.400 --> 0:17:27.880 may be being made UM. Because you know, I think 0:17:28.119 --> 0:17:32.000 you know what ultimately, what everybody would want is an 0:17:32.240 --> 0:17:37.479 administration a president who follows the rules as they've been 0:17:37.520 --> 0:17:39.840 known till now. And if he if he decided to 0:17:39.880 --> 0:17:44.879 actually divest from his company, if he actually set up 0:17:44.880 --> 0:17:48.320 a process of screenings that was appropriate, if he actually 0:17:49.280 --> 0:17:53.119 uh uh made it clear that his tax were for 0:17:53.640 --> 0:17:56.120 tax tax returns would be available for people. I think 0:17:56.119 --> 0:17:58.440 you know all this, you know, people would would would 0:17:58.480 --> 0:18:01.760 be much more confident in the lawsuits would go away. 0:18:01.800 --> 0:18:06.160 But until that happens, I think nobody can be confident that, UM, 0:18:06.200 --> 0:18:09.080 we don't have a president who is in withdrawal of 0:18:09.200 --> 0:18:14.080 foreign governments taking payments for for services and uh and 0:18:14.119 --> 0:18:16.680 I think UM As a result, I think the courts 0:18:16.680 --> 0:18:19.600 are going to certainly try and and and move as 0:18:19.640 --> 0:18:23.600 an expedited a fashion as they can. Um that not 0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:26.320 not necessarily speedy, though, as I said, because courts don't 0:18:26.560 --> 0:18:29.600 work that way. We're talking about the new lawsuit file 0:18:29.680 --> 0:18:33.840 today involving the Emolument's clause, accusing Donald Trump of violating 0:18:33.880 --> 0:18:37.760 the Constitution by his business dealings with foreign governments.