Speaker 1: Day by day, it seems that new revelations about President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump make what were once whispers of impeachment into
Speaker 1: calls for impeachment. This morning, Democratic Congressman Al Green of
Speaker 1: Texas became the first to call for Trump's impeachment on
Speaker 1: the floor of the House. We cannot allow this to
Speaker 1: go unchecked. The president is not above the law. The
Speaker 1: latest bombshell was yesterday's report that former FBI Director James
Speaker 1: Coomy documented in a memo that Trump asked him at
Speaker 1: an Oval Office meeting to shut down the investigation into
Speaker 1: former National Security Director Michael Flynn. The White House has
Speaker 1: denied Komby's version of events that followed monday shocking disclosure
Speaker 1: that the President revealed classified information in a meeting with
Speaker 1: Russian Foreign Minister's Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kisleyak, and
Speaker 1: Trump's admission last Thursday that he fired Coomy over the
Speaker 1: quote made up story about him in Russia, followed by
Speaker 1: a failed threat in a tweet the next day that
Speaker 1: comey better hope that there are no tapes of our conversations.
Speaker 1: Did Trump commit a crime or an impeachable offense or
Speaker 1: neither joining me? Are Richard Painter, professor at the University
Speaker 1: of Minnesota Law School and former ethics lawyer for George W.
Speaker 1: Bush and Bradley Moss, partner at Mark Z. Many people
Speaker 1: are questioning whether Trump's actions constituted obstruction of justice. But
Speaker 1: there's a distinction between the criminal offense of obstruction of
Speaker 1: justice and the impeachable offense of obstruction of justice. Mark,
Speaker 1: Let's start with the criminal offense. Do his actions make
Speaker 1: out a case for obstruction under federal criminal statutes? Richard, Yes,
Speaker 1: I think that there is substantial evidence of criminal obstruction
Speaker 1: of joice. I believe that they investigated by an independent
Speaker 1: special prosecutor, as well as by the House and the
Speaker 1: Senate Judiciary competty um. But the memo documented conversation that
Speaker 1: in and of itself probably would not arise to criminal
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice. But we put that in the context
Speaker 1: as the President asking the FBI director to affirm his
Speaker 1: loyalty to the president. The fact that the FBI director
Speaker 1: was fired, and that the President has acknowledged that his
Speaker 1: firing of the FBI director was connected to the Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: and then the fact that General Flynn was going to
Speaker 1: turn state's evidence in the fact asked for a immunity
Speaker 1: prosecution in return for his testimony, which would of course
Speaker 1: give everyone connected with a Trump Russia scandal a motive
Speaker 1: to want to shut down the plant investigation. We put
Speaker 1: all these facts together, and I think there is what
Speaker 1: I would characterize a strong evidence. It's a president and
Speaker 1: in criminal um obstruction of justice, but it's it's certainly
Speaker 1: not moping and shot chic at all. It needs to
Speaker 1: investigate further. And Bradley, do you agree with that? Yeah,
Speaker 1: by and large, I mean I think that the evidence
Speaker 1: we've gotten right now is very strong, circumstantial evidence for
Speaker 1: at least the impeachment charge of a structal justice UH
Speaker 1: to to supplement what Richard was saying in terms of
Speaker 1: the criminal side. The one thing that might save the president,
Speaker 1: which is a legal nuance a highly doubt he actually
Speaker 1: is aware of, is that, as far as the criminal
Speaker 1: courts have typically been concerned in a pending FBI investigation
Speaker 1: in and of itself would not qualify as the type
Speaker 1: of proceeding that would implicate any of the obstruction of
Speaker 1: justice criminal provisions under the US Code. So it's a
Speaker 1: slightly a loophole which just by happenstance would possibly save
Speaker 1: the president from a criminal charge if that was ever feasible,
Speaker 1: But in an impeachment context, he wouldn't be quite as limited.
Speaker 1: I think we do have some good circumstantial evidence. I
Speaker 1: don't believe all the pieces have quite moved into place yet, though.
Speaker 1: Impeachment is a different kind of standard, and the Constitution
Speaker 1: uses the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors. So, Richard, just
Speaker 1: in thirty seconds we will continue with this. But in
Speaker 1: thirty seconds is the case easier to make out an
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice claim under an impeachment standard? Well, of course,
Speaker 1: impeachment is a very political process. That in Congress has
Speaker 1: impeached the president for lying under oath about his text life.
Speaker 1: I couldn't give a rap behind about present sex life,
Speaker 1: but I don't care about the Russians in Russian esta
Speaker 1: by the United States, Russian agents so working in the
Speaker 1: NAST Security Council and so forth. Uh so, Um, that's
Speaker 1: going to be up to Congress to determine whether there's
Speaker 1: been obstruction of justice or whether there's been other invatuable
Speaker 1: offenses that whether to remove the president. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the thought process obstruction of justice was the main charge
Speaker 1: in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment cases. The Constitution
Speaker 1: uses the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors, and they include corruption,
Speaker 1: abuse of power, and undermining the rule of law and democracy.
Speaker 1: Many people are questioning whether President Donald Trump's actions constituted
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice, and we've been talking about that with
Speaker 1: Richard Painter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School
Speaker 1: and former ethics lawyer for George W. Bush and Bradley Moss,
Speaker 1: partner at Mark Z Bradley. Let's talk about obstruction of
Speaker 1: justice in the context of the information we learned about
Speaker 1: the meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey love Rob and
Speaker 1: Ambassador kisleyak Um. Although it was it has been said
Speaker 1: many times that President Trump has the ability to declassify
Speaker 1: information on the spot, how do you view that, Well, No,
Speaker 1: it's very true that under Article to Authority, the president
Speaker 1: can do pretty much whatever he wants with classified information.
Speaker 1: All classified information and all the procedures for deeming something
Speaker 1: classified emanate from the presidency, and every president has that authority.
Speaker 1: So the president couldn't theory post the nuclear launch codes
Speaker 1: if you wanted on Twitter, and there would be no
Speaker 1: criminal provision to take action against him, but there would
Speaker 1: be a basis to impeach him for abuse of a
Speaker 1: far sorry, for abusive power and failure to faithfully execute
Speaker 1: his office. And that's kind of what we have here,
Speaker 1: is that, yes, as a criminal matter, the president could
Speaker 1: share whatever he wanted with the Russian officials in the
Speaker 1: Oval Office, but from the context of his position and
Speaker 1: improperly executing his duties to share such sensitive details which
Speaker 1: have been provided only on condition of confidentiality from an
Speaker 1: intelligence partner, which put the asset at risk, which had
Speaker 1: not been coordinated with other agencies to make sure all
Speaker 1: proper procedures were followed first, to just off the cuff
Speaker 1: describe that information to the Russian officials could in and
Speaker 1: of itself be viewed as a basis for impeachment. But
Speaker 1: if we ever get to that point, I don't necessarily
Speaker 1: think we're emnestly and convinced we're there yet. But if
Speaker 1: we ever do get to that point, I think that'll
Speaker 1: be icing on the cake. If this president gets impeached,
Speaker 1: it's not going to be what happened with the Russians
Speaker 1: in the Oval Office. Richard. It does seem like impeachment
Speaker 1: is if at all, a long way away, considering that
Speaker 1: both Houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans. So what
Speaker 1: would be the next step the Special Council, Independent Commissions,
Speaker 1: Lect Congressional Committee. What would you see as the best
Speaker 1: next step? Well, I think that there is going to
Speaker 1: need to see an investigation continue investigation of the Russia
Speaker 1: uh A connection by the House and Senate intelligence committees,
Speaker 1: and the Republicans are going to have to very forcefully
Speaker 1: supportment investigation. The Republican Party has never in its history
Speaker 1: foot for shielding Russian agents and Russian espionage inside the
Speaker 1: United States and other subbursive activities they've been really going on.
Speaker 1: The Russian has been doing this since the nineteen seventeen
Speaker 1: Russian Revolution, trying to destabilize Western democracies. We just thought
Speaker 1: Gramps this last week. I don't think the Republicans are
Speaker 1: going to tolerate that, and those investigations are gonna pursued,
Speaker 1: and then we're gonna have investigations in the House, the
Speaker 1: Senate History Committee on the question of abuse of power.
Speaker 1: And I went to Gown. I think Republicans will uh
Speaker 1: come around on this, you know, remembering that even with
Speaker 1: the next debacle of the Republican Party came back very
Speaker 1: strong and Kenadie with election of Ronald Reagan. But participating
Speaker 1: and cover up it's certainly not the interest of of
Speaker 1: anybody in the Republican Party or anyone in Congress. So
Speaker 1: hopefully we're gonna be able to move forward on this.
Speaker 1: But it's a very serious situation because unlike water Gate,
Speaker 1: which was really a third rate burglary um, you know,
Speaker 1: but it's purely domestic, this involved the Russian UH aspying
Speaker 1: inside the United States and attempt to be stablized our government.
Speaker 1: That's a very dangerous situation. Now, do we expect Bradley
Speaker 1: to see James Comey anytime soon testifying in in Congress
Speaker 1: in the open? I believe, I know, I know that
Speaker 1: there's already been a request I think it was just
Speaker 1: made earlier this uh this morning or this afternoon for
Speaker 1: him to come back, and also Senate Intelligence or Senate
Speaker 1: Judiciary that want him to testify an open and closed
Speaker 1: classified session. I think that is very much warranted at
Speaker 1: this point. I think, given all that's already leaked out,
Speaker 1: and given these various stories now about the memoranda that
Speaker 1: he was drafting documenting the conversations with the President that
Speaker 1: were raising concerns for him that we need to have
Speaker 1: some clarity on the situation. And it's it's it's more
Speaker 1: or less about time that he comes back we get
Speaker 1: some certainty as to what exactly happened, why he didn't
Speaker 1: raise this earlier, why he had what he one of
Speaker 1: the conversations he had with the president, and what else
Speaker 1: he was concerned about, if anything. And Richard, let's talk
Speaker 1: about an FBI memo and the weight that an FBI
Speaker 1: memo carries that what about the FBI memo that an
Speaker 1: FBI memo in criminal proceedings even carries a great deal
Speaker 1: of weight, and a memo made almost contemporaneously with a
Speaker 1: discussion by an FBI up person or questioning, Well, the
Speaker 1: question is what happened in the conversation And at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, the question is gonna say, was
Speaker 1: the President UH seeking to intimidate the FBI and trying
Speaker 1: to threaten UH, were actually threatening Director Comey with being
Speaker 1: fired if he did not UH put ustop to the
Speaker 1: point investigation and tamper down the Russia investigation. UH. The
Speaker 1: evidence points in the direction of that, indeed being the case,
Speaker 1: the question isn't the mamo the mamos the evidence. The
Speaker 1: question is did the President seek to impede the FBI
Speaker 1: investigation by threatening to fire the FBI director if he
Speaker 1: did not put us out to the point investigation. I
Speaker 1: want to thank both of you for being on Bloomberg Law.
Speaker 1: That's Richard Painter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School,
Speaker 1: and Bradley Moss, partner at Mark's Aid. Coming up on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. We're going to go back in history to
Speaker 1: look at the parallels between Komi's memo and the smoking
Speaker 1: gun that took present Richard Nixon down. I am June Grosso.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg