1
00:00:00,280 --> 00:00:03,160
Speaker 1: In the first judicial test of President Trump's ability to

2
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,240
Speaker 1: stonewall Democrats demands for his financial information, a federal judge

3
00:00:07,280 --> 00:00:10,720
Speaker 1: has rejected Trump's claims and ruled that lawmakers have the

4
00:00:10,760 --> 00:00:14,560
Speaker 1: power to demand records from his accounting firm. Trump's response

5
00:00:14,680 --> 00:00:18,280
Speaker 1: was in line with his previous reactions to rulings against him,

6
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:21,599
Speaker 1: calling the judge bias. Joining me is Stephen Vladdock, professor

7
00:00:21,600 --> 00:00:24,919
Speaker 1: at the University of Texas School of Law. Steve the

8
00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:30,000
Speaker 1: judge found Trump's arguments totally unconvincing, writing that quote, it

9
00:00:30,080 --> 00:00:33,720
Speaker 1: is simply not fathomable that a constitution that grants Congress

10
00:00:33,760 --> 00:00:37,120
Speaker 1: the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior,

11
00:00:37,400 --> 00:00:41,400
Speaker 1: would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct.

12
00:00:41,840 --> 00:00:45,800
Speaker 1: How important is this first ruling in what's expected to

13
00:00:45,840 --> 00:00:48,880
Speaker 1: be a long legal battle. Well, you know, June, I

14
00:00:48,920 --> 00:00:52,599
Speaker 1: think it's important. I think both because it's actually quite persuasive.

15
00:00:52,640 --> 00:00:55,000
Speaker 1: I mean, I hope folks, whatever their views, will actually

16
00:00:55,040 --> 00:00:59,720
Speaker 1: read judge opinion. It's actually a pretty presy read. But also, Junior,

17
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:01,360
Speaker 1: know it's as the tone, I mean, I think it's,

18
00:01:01,600 --> 00:01:03,440
Speaker 1: you know, to my mind, a pretty compelling read. I'm

19
00:01:03,480 --> 00:01:05,679
Speaker 1: sure there are folks will disagree, but you know, to

20
00:01:05,760 --> 00:01:08,240
Speaker 1: have the first judge out of the gate right a

21
00:01:08,560 --> 00:01:12,120
Speaker 1: you know, pretty thorough forty plus page opinion explaining why

22
00:01:12,200 --> 00:01:14,720
Speaker 1: this argument is not just lacking in merit, but it's

23
00:01:14,760 --> 00:01:17,959
Speaker 1: actually pretty you know, alarming in its scope. Um. I

24
00:01:17,959 --> 00:01:20,399
Speaker 1: think it's a pretty important precedent. Obviously it's not the

25
00:01:20,480 --> 00:01:23,360
Speaker 1: last word, but there's value here even to being first,

26
00:01:23,440 --> 00:01:25,920
Speaker 1: And I should say to have them done so so

27
00:01:26,040 --> 00:01:28,240
Speaker 1: quickly so that this could be you know, appealed pretty

28
00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:32,000
Speaker 1: quickly as well. And Trump's lawyers have notified the judge

29
00:01:32,040 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 1: that they've appealed all aspects of his ruling. Now, the

30
00:01:35,680 --> 00:01:38,640
Speaker 1: judge ordered the accounting firm to turn over those records

31
00:01:38,640 --> 00:01:41,800
Speaker 1: within seven days, and turned down a request from the

32
00:01:41,840 --> 00:01:45,600
Speaker 1: president's attorneys to put the ruling on hold while they

33
00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:48,280
Speaker 1: seek and appeal. That puts it on a fast track.

34
00:01:48,760 --> 00:01:51,320
Speaker 1: Is it unusual for a judge to refuse a request

35
00:01:51,400 --> 00:01:53,960
Speaker 1: for a stay in a case like this that's obviously

36
00:01:54,000 --> 00:01:57,320
Speaker 1: going to be appealed, Um, June, I think it's not necessarily.

37
00:01:57,360 --> 00:01:59,680
Speaker 1: I mean that is to say, the you know, the

38
00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:02,120
Speaker 1: sestion of for whether a judge should stay his opinion

39
00:02:02,600 --> 00:02:04,760
Speaker 1: is not whether it's going to be appealed. Rather, it's

40
00:02:04,840 --> 00:02:07,320
Speaker 1: this multi factor balance of test where one of the

41
00:02:07,320 --> 00:02:09,680
Speaker 1: factors is the likelihood of success on the merits. And

42
00:02:09,720 --> 00:02:12,120
Speaker 1: I think part of what we see in judgements his

43
00:02:12,200 --> 00:02:15,680
Speaker 1: opinion is, you know, he views the likelihood of success

44
00:02:15,680 --> 00:02:18,280
Speaker 1: on the merits is pretty low here. So even if

45
00:02:18,320 --> 00:02:21,080
Speaker 1: the equities might weigh in favor of a stay, you know,

46
00:02:21,240 --> 00:02:23,480
Speaker 1: that's only one of the factors to be considered. The

47
00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:25,440
Speaker 1: fact this is going up is not of itself a

48
00:02:25,480 --> 00:02:27,919
Speaker 1: reason to put everything on hold. Let's turn to another

49
00:02:28,000 --> 00:02:31,400
Speaker 1: front in this battle for information. Former White House Council

50
00:02:31,480 --> 00:02:35,480
Speaker 1: Don McGan defied a congressional subpoena today declined to testify

51
00:02:35,600 --> 00:02:38,440
Speaker 1: before the House Judiciary Committee at the direction of the

52
00:02:38,480 --> 00:02:43,400
Speaker 1: White House. Now, this was after there was ahead of

53
00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:47,360
Speaker 1: the Office of Legal Counsel memo basically asserting that the

54
00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:53,560
Speaker 1: president's senior advisors are absolutely immune from congressional subpoenas. Tell

55
00:02:53,639 --> 00:02:56,880
Speaker 1: us how convincing the arguments that the Office of Legal

56
00:02:56,919 --> 00:02:59,440
Speaker 1: Counsel made are well. I mean, Jude, I think the

57
00:02:59,480 --> 00:03:01,720
Speaker 1: first thing is to focus is to point out what

58
00:03:01,760 --> 00:03:03,880
Speaker 1: the OLC opinion did not say. I mean, I think

59
00:03:03,880 --> 00:03:06,400
Speaker 1: we've seen a lot of claims in the press from

60
00:03:06,440 --> 00:03:10,440
Speaker 1: the President, etcetera, that he can stop McGann from testifying,

61
00:03:10,919 --> 00:03:12,680
Speaker 1: And to me, one of the most important things about

62
00:03:12,760 --> 00:03:15,480
Speaker 1: the OLC opinion that was released yesterday is it doesn't

63
00:03:15,480 --> 00:03:18,519
Speaker 1: back that up at all. There's no legal authority cited

64
00:03:18,560 --> 00:03:22,160
Speaker 1: for the proposition that the president can somehow prevent a

65
00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:27,399
Speaker 1: private citizen from voluntarily appearing before Congress Um. I think

66
00:03:27,440 --> 00:03:31,320
Speaker 1: the real question is, if, as seems likely, McGann doesn't

67
00:03:31,360 --> 00:03:35,360
Speaker 1: want to voluntarily appear before Congress, um, can the Congress

68
00:03:35,360 --> 00:03:37,960
Speaker 1: punish him? That is to say, is he immune from

69
00:03:38,200 --> 00:03:41,800
Speaker 1: some kind of sanction for failing to appear? And June

70
00:03:41,800 --> 00:03:43,920
Speaker 1: that's right. Think the ol C memo is, for lack

71
00:03:43,960 --> 00:03:47,440
Speaker 1: of a better word, short on legal precedent. I mean,

72
00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:50,480
Speaker 1: the the the examples, the old opinion sites are all

73
00:03:50,560 --> 00:03:55,200
Speaker 1: prior OLC opinions UM, and the one significant judicial ruling

74
00:03:55,360 --> 00:03:58,640
Speaker 1: in a confrontation like this by DC Digital Judge John

75
00:03:58,680 --> 00:04:02,200
Speaker 1: Bates um into out in the Harriet Myer's case runs

76
00:04:02,200 --> 00:04:04,440
Speaker 1: in the other direction. So you know, I think that

77
00:04:04,560 --> 00:04:08,240
Speaker 1: all the opinion probably won't stand up in court, but

78
00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:11,040
Speaker 1: you know, at least for now it provides enough cover

79
00:04:11,560 --> 00:04:13,400
Speaker 1: where That's where I think this battle is going to

80
00:04:13,480 --> 00:04:18,440
Speaker 1: have to be joined. Is are the president's assertions of

81
00:04:18,760 --> 00:04:23,719
Speaker 1: you know, executive privilege more persuasive than the assertions that

82
00:04:23,760 --> 00:04:28,720
Speaker 1: were made before the district judge about Congress not being

83
00:04:28,760 --> 00:04:33,960
Speaker 1: able to oversee this area oversight not being proper. Oh? Absolutely,

84
00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:35,359
Speaker 1: And I think it would be very helpful if we

85
00:04:35,440 --> 00:04:37,600
Speaker 1: broke out the two sets of legal questions that are

86
00:04:37,640 --> 00:04:40,800
Speaker 1: arising in all of these cases. Um. The first question

87
00:04:40,880 --> 00:04:42,919
Speaker 1: is does Congress have the power to issue the subpoena

88
00:04:42,960 --> 00:04:45,160
Speaker 1: and at all? Um? And that was the issue that

89
00:04:45,200 --> 00:04:48,240
Speaker 1: the district court resolves in Congress this favorite yesterday June.

90
00:04:48,320 --> 00:04:50,640
Speaker 1: That's the argument, I think because on the weakest foot

91
00:04:50,680 --> 00:04:55,239
Speaker 1: in from the president's perspective going forward, whether it's applied

92
00:04:55,279 --> 00:04:58,480
Speaker 1: to his private business records or to Don McCann testify him.

93
00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:00,839
Speaker 1: But it was always is going to be true that

94
00:05:00,920 --> 00:05:04,919
Speaker 1: the stronger arguments against these subpoenas we're gonna be specific

95
00:05:04,960 --> 00:05:09,920
Speaker 1: objections to request for particular documents that might be protected

96
00:05:09,920 --> 00:05:13,400
Speaker 1: by either executive privilege or attorney client privilege UM, and

97
00:05:13,880 --> 00:05:17,560
Speaker 1: questions under oath um the answers to which might violate

98
00:05:17,600 --> 00:05:20,880
Speaker 1: one of those privileges. The problem June is that those

99
00:05:20,920 --> 00:05:24,640
Speaker 1: are so much more retail UM that those aren't reasons

100
00:05:24,640 --> 00:05:26,520
Speaker 1: to not show up and testify at all. Right, that

101
00:05:26,600 --> 00:05:29,960
Speaker 1: is to say, you know, if that's the real objection, um,

102
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:32,880
Speaker 1: mcgam can still testify about plenty of stuff that no

103
00:05:32,920 --> 00:05:37,320
Speaker 1: one would argue as privileged, UM, including conversations that happened

104
00:05:37,360 --> 00:05:40,320
Speaker 1: after he was no longer White House counsel Um, including

105
00:05:40,640 --> 00:05:43,200
Speaker 1: you know, conversations where there was no possible privilege because

106
00:05:43,200 --> 00:05:45,720
Speaker 1: the third parties were present. So I think the problem

107
00:05:45,720 --> 00:05:49,520
Speaker 1: here is that the first argument, the weaker one, um,

108
00:05:49,640 --> 00:05:52,080
Speaker 1: is the only one that actually can look can validly

109
00:05:52,120 --> 00:05:54,919
Speaker 1: prevent any of this from happening. What really ought to

110
00:05:54,920 --> 00:05:57,159
Speaker 1: happen going forward is that we fight on the second ground,

111
00:05:57,160 --> 00:06:00,840
Speaker 1: Where are there specific subpoenas or specific question jens um

112
00:06:00,880 --> 00:06:03,680
Speaker 1: that are out of bounds when we get there? The

113
00:06:03,760 --> 00:06:07,799
Speaker 1: real question to me is what happens if, for example,

114
00:06:07,839 --> 00:06:11,760
Speaker 1: the accounting firm does not turn over those records despite

115
00:06:11,880 --> 00:06:15,880
Speaker 1: a judge's order. What happens if McGann, If the House

116
00:06:15,960 --> 00:06:18,280
Speaker 1: goes to a judge and gets an order for it

117
00:06:18,440 --> 00:06:20,920
Speaker 1: McGann and he doesn't show up. I mean, what is

118
00:06:20,960 --> 00:06:23,880
Speaker 1: the way to enforce these Yeah. I mean, I think

119
00:06:23,920 --> 00:06:25,599
Speaker 1: you know, this is the this is the real dilemma

120
00:06:25,680 --> 00:06:28,080
Speaker 1: that Congress is is, you know, finally coming face to

121
00:06:28,120 --> 00:06:30,479
Speaker 1: face with which is that, to a large degree, it's

122
00:06:30,600 --> 00:06:32,760
Speaker 1: enforcement power depends at least to some degree, on a

123
00:06:32,800 --> 00:06:36,719
Speaker 1: modicum of cooperation from the executive branch. Um. I think,

124
00:06:36,800 --> 00:06:39,400
Speaker 1: you know, June, I'm at least willing to withhold judgment

125
00:06:39,920 --> 00:06:42,400
Speaker 1: on whether the administration is going to continue to defy

126
00:06:42,560 --> 00:06:45,480
Speaker 1: these subpoenas until these legal challenges are concluded. I mean,

127
00:06:45,480 --> 00:06:47,719
Speaker 1: I think there's no doubt that at least one of

128
00:06:47,720 --> 00:06:50,560
Speaker 1: these cases is probably heading to the Supreme Court. Um.

129
00:06:50,720 --> 00:06:53,279
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, until the Supreme Court rules

130
00:06:53,320 --> 00:06:56,880
Speaker 1: against President Trump and the administration still doesn't comply, I

131
00:06:56,920 --> 00:07:00,520
Speaker 1: think the process might still be working. Um. The tricky

132
00:07:00,560 --> 00:07:02,800
Speaker 1: part is that it's going to take some time for

133
00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:05,039
Speaker 1: all of this to unfold. That's why I think it's

134
00:07:05,080 --> 00:07:09,040
Speaker 1: heartening that whatever one thinks of Judge Mata's opinion yesterday

135
00:07:09,080 --> 00:07:12,080
Speaker 1: in the Mazars case, he issued it pretty quickly. Um.

136
00:07:12,120 --> 00:07:14,080
Speaker 1: And this, you know, opens the door for a pretty

137
00:07:14,160 --> 00:07:16,720
Speaker 1: quick appeal now to the d C Circuit, so that

138
00:07:16,800 --> 00:07:19,520
Speaker 1: whoever is ultimately going to win on the law. We're

139
00:07:19,560 --> 00:07:21,520
Speaker 1: at least going to find out sooner rather than leader.

140
00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:24,080
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Steve. I have so many more

141
00:07:24,160 --> 00:07:26,760
Speaker 1: questions here. This seems to be one one ruling and

142
00:07:26,800 --> 00:07:29,200
Speaker 1: about ten more questions with it. Thank you so much.

143
00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:32,000
Speaker 1: That's Steve Vladik. He is a professor at the University

144
00:07:32,040 --> 00:07:34,080
Speaker 1: of Texas School of Law