WEBVTT - The Debate Over the Articles of Impeachment

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight an analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.280
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. We begin consideration

0:00:20.320 --> 0:00:24.080
<v Speaker 1>of two articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump.

0:00:24.400 --> 0:00:26.639
<v Speaker 1>It was a historic week for the nation as the

0:00:26.640 --> 0:00:31.400
<v Speaker 1>House Judiciary Committee debated articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump,

0:00:31.600 --> 0:00:35.120
<v Speaker 1>two articles charging him with abuse of power for asking

0:00:35.200 --> 0:00:39.879
<v Speaker 1>Ukraine to investigate Joe Bidenweil withholding aid as leverage, and

0:00:40.000 --> 0:00:44.680
<v Speaker 1>obstruction of Congress for stonewalling the House's investigation. Trump trying

0:00:44.720 --> 0:00:49.000
<v Speaker 1>to downplay the impeachment at a rally in Pennsylvania on Tuesday.

0:00:49.040 --> 0:00:53.040
<v Speaker 1>This is the lightest impeachment in the history of our

0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:57.720
<v Speaker 1>country by far. It's not even like an impeachment. My

0:00:57.840 --> 0:01:01.400
<v Speaker 1>guest is Harold Crant, a professor at Chicago Kent College

0:01:01.400 --> 0:01:06.200
<v Speaker 1>of Law. So, Harold, President Trump is calling this impeachment light.

0:01:06.760 --> 0:01:10.160
<v Speaker 1>Is that historically accurate? Colling not I. An impeachment is

0:01:10.160 --> 0:01:13.839
<v Speaker 1>an impeachment, and it's a constitutionally based measure from which

0:01:14.160 --> 0:01:17.160
<v Speaker 1>the Congress can determine the appropriateness of an officer to

0:01:17.840 --> 0:01:21.880
<v Speaker 1>continue in that position. And whether there are ten articles

0:01:21.880 --> 0:01:24.200
<v Speaker 1>of impeachment or two is in this case, whether they're

0:01:24.200 --> 0:01:28.679
<v Speaker 1>based upon treason or based upon abuse of office. It's

0:01:28.720 --> 0:01:33.120
<v Speaker 1>all the same constitutional means and check and balance to

0:01:33.240 --> 0:01:37.080
<v Speaker 1>make sure that someone's food for office. The Democrats really

0:01:37.440 --> 0:01:41.119
<v Speaker 1>kept these articles of impeachment narrow. What do you think

0:01:41.120 --> 0:01:45.800
<v Speaker 1>of their strategy? The first surprise to me was that

0:01:46.040 --> 0:01:49.640
<v Speaker 1>nothing about the Muller investigation and Russian influence into the

0:01:49.720 --> 0:01:53.880
<v Speaker 1>prior election was included. I actually agreed with that decision

0:01:54.160 --> 0:01:56.480
<v Speaker 1>by no, it's controversial, and I think it's controversial because

0:01:56.680 --> 0:01:59.360
<v Speaker 1>not think it's Republicans, but because the Democrats some felt

0:01:59.400 --> 0:02:01.920
<v Speaker 1>that they had some kind of loyalty or duty to

0:02:02.680 --> 0:02:04.960
<v Speaker 1>not in that direction, given all that had gone on

0:02:05.120 --> 0:02:08.520
<v Speaker 1>and all that the president reportedly did to obstruct the investigation,

0:02:08.720 --> 0:02:12.040
<v Speaker 1>that there would be something about that episode in our

0:02:12.120 --> 0:02:15.360
<v Speaker 1>history included. So that's the first surprise. Clearly, anti Plosi

0:02:15.440 --> 0:02:17.639
<v Speaker 1>didn't want that. She felt that the members of the

0:02:17.680 --> 0:02:20.680
<v Speaker 1>public were turned off by the Russian investigation, by the

0:02:20.720 --> 0:02:23.240
<v Speaker 1>moral reported, by the fact that nothing really happened with it,

0:02:23.600 --> 0:02:25.959
<v Speaker 1>and so I think she made a safe political call

0:02:26.080 --> 0:02:30.240
<v Speaker 1>to exercise that whole chapter from the impeachment proceedings. But

0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:35.640
<v Speaker 1>the second interesting angle is the fact that no crime

0:02:35.960 --> 0:02:40.320
<v Speaker 1>specifically was mentioned in the abuse of power article of impeachment.

0:02:40.840 --> 0:02:43.880
<v Speaker 1>And I think that the goal of the Democrats there

0:02:44.320 --> 0:02:46.720
<v Speaker 1>was to try not to say that this is illegalistic,

0:02:46.919 --> 0:02:50.320
<v Speaker 1>but to say that the whole Ukraine quid pro quo

0:02:50.320 --> 0:02:53.720
<v Speaker 1>was an abuse of authority, abuse of loyalty to the country,

0:02:54.120 --> 0:02:57.760
<v Speaker 1>to the fighting forces of Ukraine and their competition against Russia,

0:02:58.360 --> 0:03:02.000
<v Speaker 1>and that what you call it briber, theft of honor

0:03:02.080 --> 0:03:05.680
<v Speaker 1>services or a campaign violation, The point is it's an

0:03:05.720 --> 0:03:09.080
<v Speaker 1>abuse of authority and you don't want a president putting

0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:11.920
<v Speaker 1>a personal gain above that of the country. So that

0:03:12.080 --> 0:03:15.560
<v Speaker 1>was their angle. But that does open up a window,

0:03:15.560 --> 0:03:18.040
<v Speaker 1>if you will, a crack for the Republicans to say, look,

0:03:18.280 --> 0:03:23.040
<v Speaker 1>the Democrats haven't even said that the whole Ukraine episode

0:03:23.520 --> 0:03:26.839
<v Speaker 1>is tantam out to a specific crime, And what they're

0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:29.639
<v Speaker 1>saying is, come on, now, you may not like what

0:03:29.680 --> 0:03:33.360
<v Speaker 1>the president did, and it's you know, maybe unclear, but

0:03:33.400 --> 0:03:36.000
<v Speaker 1>if it's not a crime, why are you thinking that

0:03:36.000 --> 0:03:38.960
<v Speaker 1>you should push for impeachment for it? Impeachment should be

0:03:39.000 --> 0:03:42.240
<v Speaker 1>for something like a high crime and misdemeanor, trees and bribery,

0:03:42.480 --> 0:03:45.040
<v Speaker 1>something of that sort, and knew the Democrats have not

0:03:45.120 --> 0:03:48.280
<v Speaker 1>even labeled what the president did with any specific crimes.

0:03:48.320 --> 0:03:51.920
<v Speaker 1>So that's the terrain, and I certainly understand the Democrats strategy.

0:03:52.040 --> 0:03:54.600
<v Speaker 1>I think Republicans are turning it around as most effectively

0:03:54.640 --> 0:03:57.880
<v Speaker 1>as they can. And the real question is where the

0:03:57.880 --> 0:04:00.440
<v Speaker 1>public that they care one way or the other about

0:04:00.440 --> 0:04:03.600
<v Speaker 1>how the Democrats have positioned this or how the Republicans

0:04:03.600 --> 0:04:09.080
<v Speaker 1>have responded. So, going into the Senate trial, which appears

0:04:09.160 --> 0:04:15.080
<v Speaker 1>inevitable right now, does Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have the

0:04:15.480 --> 0:04:20.159
<v Speaker 1>power to determine what happens there. He does in the

0:04:20.240 --> 0:04:24.800
<v Speaker 1>sense that absence something happening in the near future, the

0:04:24.920 --> 0:04:28.400
<v Speaker 1>votes seem to be there to support the president. The

0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:30.479
<v Speaker 1>process is something that you can go a lot of

0:04:30.480 --> 0:04:33.080
<v Speaker 1>different ways on. I mean, maybe they'll be witnesses or

0:04:33.279 --> 0:04:36.880
<v Speaker 1>probably won't be witnesses, but that's something that McConnell will

0:04:37.000 --> 0:04:41.320
<v Speaker 1>decide in the best interests of his party, and most

0:04:41.320 --> 0:04:43.120
<v Speaker 1>people think that it's in the best interests of his

0:04:43.200 --> 0:04:45.960
<v Speaker 1>party not to have witnesses, because if you have a

0:04:46.000 --> 0:04:51.000
<v Speaker 1>parade of Republicans pointing a figure at the president that's

0:04:51.640 --> 0:04:55.239
<v Speaker 1>likely to undermine support for the president. Though obviously President

0:04:55.279 --> 0:04:58.240
<v Speaker 1>Trump has said that he'd love to see Hunter Biden

0:04:58.680 --> 0:05:02.479
<v Speaker 1>testify before the Senate um as well. But I think

0:05:02.520 --> 0:05:04.680
<v Speaker 1>that the Democrats should take them up on that. If

0:05:04.720 --> 0:05:09.520
<v Speaker 1>they allow John Bolton to testify, who's the Republican who

0:05:09.560 --> 0:05:12.359
<v Speaker 1>probably was outside because of his disagreement with the foreign

0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:16.400
<v Speaker 1>policy choices of the President, that they would be willing

0:05:16.440 --> 0:05:18.880
<v Speaker 1>to have Hunter Biden there as well. So it's a

0:05:18.920 --> 0:05:22.000
<v Speaker 1>process determination. There's nothing in the Constitution about it. It's

0:05:22.000 --> 0:05:25.760
<v Speaker 1>really up to the Senate to create that that process,

0:05:25.839 --> 0:05:27.920
<v Speaker 1>and my guests at this point is it will be

0:05:27.960 --> 0:05:31.880
<v Speaker 1>streamlined because the Republicans are confident they have the votes

0:05:32.000 --> 0:05:35.920
<v Speaker 1>to um equip the president of these two articles of impeachment.

0:05:36.440 --> 0:05:42.000
<v Speaker 1>Two Republican senators told CNN that McConnell is expecting to

0:05:42.080 --> 0:05:46.320
<v Speaker 1>hold a final vote to acquit Trump instead of holding

0:05:46.320 --> 0:05:50.440
<v Speaker 1>a vote on dismissing the articles of impeachment. Is that

0:05:50.520 --> 0:05:53.480
<v Speaker 1>purely so that Trump can say he was acquitted? Is

0:05:53.520 --> 0:05:56.920
<v Speaker 1>there any difference there? I don't, I think so. I mean,

0:05:56.920 --> 0:06:00.160
<v Speaker 1>there's a procedural wrinkle as you suggested. I think the

0:06:00.240 --> 0:06:02.719
<v Speaker 1>question begind of the day is will the Senate vote

0:06:03.400 --> 0:06:08.640
<v Speaker 1>with two thirds majority to affirm or to convict on

0:06:08.680 --> 0:06:11.800
<v Speaker 1>the impeachment articles presented by the House, and whether they

0:06:11.800 --> 0:06:15.039
<v Speaker 1>decided to dismiss them or to acquit. It really comes

0:06:15.080 --> 0:06:18.320
<v Speaker 1>down to the same thing, is that they are deciding

0:06:18.440 --> 0:06:23.320
<v Speaker 1>not to remove the president from office. The expectation from

0:06:23.360 --> 0:06:26.440
<v Speaker 1>the beginning has been that Trump will be impeached in

0:06:26.480 --> 0:06:29.840
<v Speaker 1>the House, but not convicted in the Senate. And as

0:06:29.880 --> 0:06:32.640
<v Speaker 1>you know, no president has been removed from office in

0:06:32.680 --> 0:06:38.000
<v Speaker 1>our history. Were the Framers wrong to mandate sixty seven

0:06:38.120 --> 0:06:41.400
<v Speaker 1>votes to remove a president a barrier that hasn't been

0:06:41.440 --> 0:06:43.720
<v Speaker 1>reached in the nearly two d fifty years of our

0:06:43.880 --> 0:06:48.400
<v Speaker 1>nation's history. Well, it's worth repeating that the Framers didn't

0:06:48.440 --> 0:06:53.479
<v Speaker 1>understand about political parties, had no way for telling that

0:06:53.520 --> 0:06:56.200
<v Speaker 1>they would play such a huge role in American politics.

0:06:56.760 --> 0:07:00.400
<v Speaker 1>Have they understood the dynamical political parties, perhaps they would

0:07:00.400 --> 0:07:03.560
<v Speaker 1>have devised a different procedure, but that's not to say

0:07:03.600 --> 0:07:07.840
<v Speaker 1>that the procedure is lacking in force. The impeachment specter,

0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:11.160
<v Speaker 1>if you will, they cause federal officers as well as

0:07:11.160 --> 0:07:14.280
<v Speaker 1>the president to act more responsibly while they're in office.

0:07:14.320 --> 0:07:17.080
<v Speaker 1>And as you pointed out, we've really only had two

0:07:17.280 --> 0:07:20.840
<v Speaker 1>presidents impeached in our history. Both were not removed from office,

0:07:20.880 --> 0:07:24.720
<v Speaker 1>but proceeding against President Nixon could lead him to resign

0:07:24.800 --> 0:07:26.600
<v Speaker 1>so that he would not be removed from office. So

0:07:26.640 --> 0:07:28.880
<v Speaker 1>I think the fact that it hasn't been used that

0:07:29.000 --> 0:07:32.160
<v Speaker 1>much doesn't suggest that it doesn't have some still vital

0:07:32.240 --> 0:07:35.720
<v Speaker 1>role to play in our separation of powers and structure,

0:07:36.040 --> 0:07:38.480
<v Speaker 1>and I think it may well do. The wild card

0:07:38.520 --> 0:07:41.880
<v Speaker 1>in this is that the Supreme Court is deciding this

0:07:41.960 --> 0:07:46.560
<v Speaker 1>week likely whether to take the two text cases against

0:07:47.400 --> 0:07:51.040
<v Speaker 1>Trump ordering him to divulge his taxes, And if they

0:07:51.080 --> 0:07:56.080
<v Speaker 1>decline to take up those cases, those tax returns will

0:07:56.120 --> 0:08:01.960
<v Speaker 1>have to be delivered immediately on one case to the

0:08:02.000 --> 0:08:05.160
<v Speaker 1>prosecutor's New yorkular case to the House. And what if

0:08:05.200 --> 0:08:09.440
<v Speaker 1>the President frump continues to flout judicial orders. That would

0:08:09.440 --> 0:08:14.160
<v Speaker 1>then open up the House for a another impeachment article.

0:08:14.280 --> 0:08:17.840
<v Speaker 1>And I think that the some Senate memories will start

0:08:17.880 --> 0:08:21.480
<v Speaker 1>peeling off at that point and saying you can't have

0:08:21.560 --> 0:08:24.960
<v Speaker 1>a president who is above the law. And it's one

0:08:25.000 --> 0:08:29.480
<v Speaker 1>thing to have the president ignore what Congress requests that

0:08:29.520 --> 0:08:32.520
<v Speaker 1>seems to be typical government in fighting. But it's another

0:08:32.559 --> 0:08:36.880
<v Speaker 1>thing that when the president ignores what a judge requires,

0:08:36.920 --> 0:08:39.400
<v Speaker 1>So that's a wild card. It may not happen, but

0:08:39.600 --> 0:08:42.440
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court will have to make that determination very soon.

0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:47.439
<v Speaker 1>Chief Justice John Roberts frequently talks about how the Court

0:08:47.520 --> 0:08:51.360
<v Speaker 1>is above politics. Well, now he is going to be

0:08:51.480 --> 0:08:56.600
<v Speaker 1>presiding over the impeachment trial in the Senate. What's his role?

0:08:56.920 --> 0:09:01.640
<v Speaker 1>Is it purely procedural? This is an open, untruged waters.

0:09:01.920 --> 0:09:04.600
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I do think that Chief Justice Roberts cares

0:09:04.679 --> 0:09:08.520
<v Speaker 1>very deeply about the image and the incentity of the

0:09:08.600 --> 0:09:12.160
<v Speaker 1>cord in our system of separation of powers. He's voted

0:09:12.200 --> 0:09:15.600
<v Speaker 1>that way in several key cases. He's talked about that

0:09:15.760 --> 0:09:19.199
<v Speaker 1>in lectures. I think he'll try to run a trial

0:09:19.520 --> 0:09:23.000
<v Speaker 1>narrowly deciding procedural issues, try to channel the issues, try

0:09:23.080 --> 0:09:27.280
<v Speaker 1>to make sure that it's a streamlined, efficient process. I

0:09:27.280 --> 0:09:30.480
<v Speaker 1>think he would try to avoid assiduously any kind of

0:09:30.520 --> 0:09:34.320
<v Speaker 1>situation which would cause him to seem to delve his

0:09:34.400 --> 0:09:37.840
<v Speaker 1>own toe into the political waters in terms of setting

0:09:37.880 --> 0:09:40.720
<v Speaker 1>one way or another way. And I think contempt would

0:09:40.720 --> 0:09:44.760
<v Speaker 1>be always possible, but I think it's it's unlikely, and

0:09:44.800 --> 0:09:47.160
<v Speaker 1>he would try to avoid that at all steps possible.

0:09:47.280 --> 0:09:50.280
<v Speaker 1>I do think that, just to make a long answer short,

0:09:50.360 --> 0:09:53.640
<v Speaker 1>he would try everything is disposal to be as neutral

0:09:53.679 --> 0:09:56.160
<v Speaker 1>of an arbor as he could during the Senate trial.

0:09:56.440 --> 0:09:59.840
<v Speaker 1>Thanks Harold, that's Harold Granted, professor at the Chicago cand

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:03.640
<v Speaker 1>College of Law. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:10:03.960 --> 0:10:08.040
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:10:08.120 --> 0:10:12.000
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:10:12.480 --> 0:10:15.360
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg m